Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsink MCP

Bugsink MCP

by rexlManu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List projects, optionally filtered by team UUID, returning project details without DSNs.

Instructions

List projects, optionally filtered by team UUID. DSNs are omitted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNo
limitNo
cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools