Bugsink MCP

by rexlManu

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: list_* for collections, get_* for single items, and get_event_stacktrace for stacktraces. However, get_event and get_event_stacktrace both relate to event details, and get_latest_event_stacktrace could be confused with get_event_stacktrace without reading carefully, but descriptions clarify.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming follows a consistent list_/get_ pattern with entities. The exception is get_latest_event_stacktrace, which deviates from the simple get_<entity> structure but still uses the get_ prefix and describes the specific action clearly.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering teams, projects, issues, events, and stacktraces, the count is well-scoped for a read-only error tracking server. No redundancy or excess, and it's within the typical 3-15 tool range.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read access to the core domain: listing entities, retrieving details, and fetching stacktraces. Missing are write operations, but the server appears focused on inspection/troubleshooting, so no critical gaps for that purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral caveats about secrets and attacker-controlled text in raw/stacktrace sections, and the default exclusion of Laravel vendor frames.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, well-structured, and contains no redundant information. It communicates the core behavior and key warnings in two compact sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, the description is not fully complete. It explains high-level capabilities and warnings but omits pagination details, parameter semantics, and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. Most parameters (limit, cursor, max_chars, include_source, application_only) are unexplained, and only some section enum values are mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource (event) and the selectable sections. It distinguishes the general event retrieval from more focused tools like get_event_stacktrace, though not by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_event_stacktrace or get_latest_event_stacktrace. It provides some usage hints (raw/stacktrace are opt-ins, vendor frames excluded) but lacks direct alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns that content is sensitive and untrusted, which goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. It also mentions pagination, but does not explain how pagination works or what side effects (if any) exist beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant filler. It conveys purpose and a critical security warning efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only paginated text endpoint, the description covers purpose and sensitivity, but lacks important context such as parameter meanings, pagination mechanics, and output expectations, especially since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It never mentions event_id, cursor, or max_chars, and only vaguely implies pagination through 'paginated text'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Bugsink-rendered frames, source context and locals'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_latest_event_stacktrace' or explain how it differs from 'get_event'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_latest_event_stacktrace or get_event. The only usage-related note is the security warning, which does not help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the behavioral profile. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds a small amount of context by indicating the returned data (team IDs and names), though it does not elaborate on side effects or rate limits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and pagination feature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple listing tool: it states what is returned (team IDs and names) and the pagination method. Since there is no output schema, this return information is sufficient. It could be slightly more detailed about the pagination format, but overall it covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'limit' or 'cursor' parameters at all. Schema coverage is 0% because the description only mentions 'cursor pagination' generically without detailing how the parameters affect behavior. The schema provides type and constraints, but the description adds no semantic value to them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (team IDs and names), and the pagination mechanism. It is unambiguous and distinct from any sibling tools, which deal with events, projects, and issues rather than teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its clear purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since no sibling tool lists teams, the use case is implicitly understood, but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the result includes source and locals, and continuation cursors stay pinned to the event. It does not mention failure modes or side effects, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful detail, with no redundancy or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for the main purpose, but incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. max_chars is never mentioned, cursor mechanics are only implied, and the relationship to the sibling get_event_stacktrace tool is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only issue_id described. The description mentions continuation cursors generally but never explicitly explains the cursor parameter or the max_chars parameter, leaving important parameter semantics under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies a specific read operation: fetching the newest stored event’s stacktrace as rendered text with source and locals. The phrase 'newest stored occurrence' distinguishes it from generic event or stacktrace retrieval siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Conveys when to use it—when the newest stored occurrence is needed with rendered text, source, and locals—and adds useful context about pinned cursors. It does not explicitly contrast with get_event_stacktrace or list_events, but the 'newest' scope provides clear situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful transparency by stating DSNs are omitted from results. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the annotation supplies the primary behavioral safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides basic context but omits important details about pagination and the cursor/limit parameters. The DSN omission note is helpful, but without any mention of pagination behavior, the context is only partially complete for a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'team' parameter; the 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters are left completely unexplained. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema descriptions and does not cover all parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists projects, names the resource, and notes the optional team UUID filter. It also distinguishes itself by calling out that DSNs are omitted, which helps differentiate it from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical guidance by mentioning the optional team UUID filter and the DSN omission. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the filtering and omission details provide enough context for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral note about using the returned id rather than event_id, and states default ordering. It does not contradict the annotations and provides a small amount of extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or verbose text. The secondary sentence adds a crucial cross-tool usage note without breaking flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what is needed: it lists events for an issue, mentions ordering, and hints at the shape of the returned id. It does not discuss pagination or error handling, but these are common and not necessary for such a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only issue_id has a description), and the description does not compensate. Limit, order, and cursor are left without explanation, and the issue_id description itself is confusing as it mixes issue and event ID terminology. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'event metadata', and the scope 'for an issue', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event or list_issues. The phrase 'Use the returned id, not event_id, with get_event' further clarifies the purpose by linking to a subsequent operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on how to use the result with get_event, which is a useful usage note. It also specifies default ordering ('newest first'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_issues or get_event_stacktrace, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds no extra side-effect information, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, using only two sentences. It conveys the essential information without fluff or redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists what the tool returns (status, exception message, counts, timestamps), which is sufficient given there is no output schema. Combined with the sibling context, it provides enough information for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter issue_id has a complete schema description (format and meaning), so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving specific issue details such as status, exception message, occurrence counts, and timestamps. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('issue'), making the action unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly directs users to 'Use list_events for stack traces,' providing a clear alternative and condition for when this tool should not be used. This helps distinguish it from sibling tools and gives actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra transparency by disclosing pagination limits and edge-case behavior (empty items with next_cursor), which is useful for callers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three well-structured sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence adds distinct information about the tool's behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation, the description covers the essential aspects: resource, filtering, sorting, pagination, and a practical hint. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for a caller to understand the tool's behavior and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of 'open' for the status parameter and 'digest_order' for sort, but does not explain other parameters like limit, order, cursor, or project. Partial coverage only.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List issues') and the resource scope ('for a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events or list_projects. It also provides specific sorting and status nuances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical usage guidance: explains the meaning of 'open' status, cautions about pagination (at most three pages, empty items may have next_cursor), and suggests using digest_order for a less volatile sort. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, but the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Bugsink MCP MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![Bugsink MCP MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rexlManu/bugsink-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rexlManu/bugsink-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Bugsink MCP MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rexlManu/bugsink-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rexlManu/bugsink-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rexlManu/bugsink-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server