Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsnag MCP Server

Bugsnag MCP Server

by tgeselle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

list_projects

List all projects in a Bugsnag organization using its ID to get an overview of monitored applications.

Instructions

List projects in an organization

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idYesBugsnag organization ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

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 ('List projects in an organization') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately informative.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks context about how the returned data is structured or how one might use the organization_id. There is no output schema, and no mention of whether the result is an array of project objects or if there are limit/pagination considerations.

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 only parameter, organization_id, is already described in the schema as 'Bugsnag organization ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'projects', scoped by 'in an organization'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organizations (which lists organizations) and list_errors (which lists errors), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that an organization_id would come from list_organizations, nor does it state any prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the name and description, not explicitly explained.

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