Identify Sentry errors that regressed or were first introduced in a specific release or timeframe to triage production issues.
Find errors in Sentry that have regressed or were first introduced in a specific release or timeframe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Sentry project slug | |
| release | No | Release tag/version | |
| timeframe | No | Time window e.g. '24h', '7d' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies what counts as a regression (regressed or newly introduced), but says nothing about auth/integration requirements, result limits, pagination, ordering, or default behavior — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, delivering the tool's scope immediately. It is efficiently sized, though it could carry one more clause of operational guidance without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No annotations and no output schema mean the description must carry everything, yet it omits what is returned, how results are scoped when zero of the three optional parameters are supplied, and how release vs timeframe interact. Inadequate for a discovery tool whose parameters are all optional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only that release or timeframe may scope the search, without clarifying whether they are alternatives, combinable, or what happens if neither/all optional params are omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (find) and resource (errors) plus a discriminating condition: errors that have regressed or were first introduced in a release/timeframe. This distinguishes it reasonably well from generic siblings like get_recent_errors, but it never names or contrasts an alternative tool explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies the scenario (post-release regression triage) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no instruction on choosing between the release and timeframe parameters or which sibling to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.