Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsnag MCP Server

Bugsnag MCP Server

by tgeselle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

search_issues

Search Bugsnag issues using query, app version, or error class to identify and resolve errors.

Instructions

Search for issues using various criteria

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "search_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch query
project_idYesBugsnag project ID
app_versionNoFilter by app version
error_classNoFilter by error class

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only restates the function. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, sorting, how criteria combine, or whether it searches within a project. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices useful detail, making it concise but not optimally informative.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of overlapping siblings, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'issues' are, how the search behaves, or what the result set looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a minimal description (e.g., 'Filter by app version'). The description adds only 'various criteria' and doesn't expand on parameter behavior, so it meets the baseline of 3 but adds no extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'search' with resource 'issues', but 'various criteria' is vague and doesn't enumerate what those criteria are. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_errors, which may also return issues. A clear but under-specified purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_errors or view_error. There is no mention of when to prefer search_issues over list_errors or vice versa, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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