Rollbar MCP Server
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.5.0
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.
- This server provides 8 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, yet discloses no behavioral traits. Fails to explain the truncation behavior mentioned in the max_tokens schema description, what 'occurrence data' means, or the structure/format of returned item details. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but safety profiles and return schemas remain undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief (single sentence), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence wastes the opportunity to add value beyond the tool name, failing to front-load critical distinctions or behavioral warnings that an agent would need to select this tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what details are returned and how they relate to Rollbar's data model (items vs occurrences). It omits this entirely. For a 3-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description inadequately compensates for missing structured metadata about return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds no parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain that 'counter' is a unique identifier, or clarify the project auto-detection behavior). However, schema adequately documents all three parameters including the optional nature of 'project' and truncation logic for 'max_tokens'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get item details for a Rollbar item' essentially restates the tool name (tautology) with the addition of the domain 'Rollbar'. It fails to specify what constitutes 'item details' (e.g., error metadata, stack traces, occurrences) or how this differs from siblings like list-items or update-item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critical distinction missing between this single-item retrieval and list-items (presumably for multiple items), or when project parameter is required versus optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what criteria define 'top' items, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or the structure of returned data. The description only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get' but provides no substantive 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and appropriately front-loaded. However, it prioritizes brevity over clarity—while not verbose, it wastes the single sentence on vague terminology ('top items') rather than precise functional description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking annotations and output schema, the description should explain the return format and sorting logic. It fails to clarify the critical distinction between 'top items' and regular item listing, and omits operational details like default result limits or time ranges, leaving significant gaps for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'environment' and 'project' parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get list') and resource ('top items'), but fails to define what 'top' means (frequency? severity? impact?). Given the sibling tool 'list-items', this ambiguity prevents the agent from selecting the correct tool. It restates the tool name with slightly more detail but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus the sibling 'list-items' tool, or when the optional 'project' parameter is required. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to explain key behaviors: it does not clarify what 'items' represent (errors/exceptions), describe the pagination model (despite page/limit parameters), mention rate limits, or explain the default 'production' environment behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded, it is inappropriately brief given the lack of annotations and output schema. The description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata with necessary explanatory context, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given seven parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits explanation of the pagination behavior, the nature of Rollbar 'items', how results are ordered, and guidance on the project parameter's conditional requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to replicate parameter details. The phrase 'optional search and filtering' broadly acknowledges the filtering capabilities, but adds no specific semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (items in the Rollbar project), and mentions 'optional search and filtering' which hints at the tool's capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get-top-items or get-item-details, though the 'all items' phrasing implies comprehensiveness versus 'top'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-item-details (for specific items) or get-top-items (for trending issues). The description lacks prerequisites, such as when the 'project' parameter is required versus optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention pagination behavior despite the limit parameter, describe the return format, or note any rate limits or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy or filler. However, it is arguably too minimal, lacking the additional sentences needed to address behavioral transparency or usage guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of numerous sibling tools dealing with different Rollbar entities (items, projects, versions), the description fails to clarify what deployments are or how they relate to these other resources. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with limit and project adequately documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but this is acceptable given the complete schema coverage establishes the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (deployments data) and identifies the external system (Rollbar). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like get-version or list-items, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a 'deployment' versus other Rollbar entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-version or list-projects. The optional 'project' parameter lacks usage guidance (e.g., when to omit it), and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the read operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It omits crucial details about the delivery modes (file vs resource), payload size limits, or what format the replay data takes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single 9-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical behavioral context undocumented.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters with complex delivery options and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to compensate by explaining return values, payload structure, or behavioral differences between 'file' and 'resource' delivery modes, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters including the enum values for 'delivery'. The description implies required identifiers ('specific session replay') but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get'), target resource ('replay data'), and scope ('specific session replay in Rollbar'). It distinguishes from siblings like list-items or get-deployments by specifying 'replay' context, though it could clarify relationship to get-item-details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('for a specific session replay') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites for the identifiers, or comparison to sibling tools like get-item-details that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a safe read operation, what happens if the version is not found, rate limits, or what specific details are returned. The phrase 'Get version details' implies data retrieval but lacks explicit safety or 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence wastes no words and immediately states the core function. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is arguably under-sized for the tool's complexity, though the sentence itself is efficiently constructed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three simple string parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally characterize the returned version details (e.g., deployment metadata, commit info). The absence of this information leaves a gap in contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., valid formats for version strings, environment constraints), but the schema adequately documents all three parameters including the optional nature of 'project' and default for 'environment'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('version details for a Rollbar project'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get-deployments' or clarify what constitutes a 'version' in the Rollbar context (e.g., code deployment vs. API version).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-deployments', nor does it mention prerequisites such as project configuration requirements. Zero guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose mutation safety, idempotency, or return values. Critically omits account-tier restrictions visible in schema (paid/Enterprise-only features for 'snoozed' and 'teamId').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action. Efficient though 'etc.' is vague given specific account restrictions exist in schema. Appropriate length for overview but misses opportunity to highlight critical constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Fails to address success/failure behavior, required permissions, or the fact that some parameters require paid/Enterprise accounts despite these being documented in the schema parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. Description provides high-level categorization ('assignment' covering both user and team assignment) but adds no semantic depth beyond schema (e.g., explaining status lifecycle or snooze behavior).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('item in Rollbar') with parenthetical examples of updatable fields. Distinguishes from sibling get/list tools by operation type, though could clarify distinction from get-item-details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Lists mutable attributes (status, level, title, assignment) but provides no guidance on when to use versus read-only alternatives or prerequisites like item existence. No mention of partial vs full update semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. While 'configured' and 'available to this MCP server' hints at access scope, it fails to clarify read-only safety, pagination behavior, error cases, or the return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of nine words with no redundancy. It leads with the action verb and immediately identifies the resource, placing critical information first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description adequately identifies what is returned (projects), but lacks explanation of how the results relate to sibling operations or what 'configured' implies for the integration setup. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rubric. The input schema is trivially complete with no additional semantic context required from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (configured Rollbar projects) with scope limitation ('available to this MCP server'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list-items' by targeting 'projects' rather than 'items', though explicit contrast would strengthen this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that this is a prerequisite discovery tool likely needed before calling project-specific siblings like 'list-items' or 'get-deployments'.
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
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
How to claim the server?
If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.
However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
"maintainers": [
"your-github-username"
]
}Then, authenticate using GitHub.
Browse examples.
How to make a release?
A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:
- Claim the server if you haven't already.
- Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
- Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.
This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.
How to add a LICENSE?
Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.
Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
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.
Latest Blog Posts
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/rollbar/rollbar-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server