Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsnag MCP Server

Bugsnag MCP Server

by tgeselle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

view_event

Get detailed information about a specific Bugsnag event to investigate stacktraces and exception chains.

Instructions

View detailed information about a specific event

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>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "view_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesBugsnag event ID
project_idYesBugsnag project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('view') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, output format, or error behavior. For a simple view-by-ID tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence with no wasted words, directly conveying the core purpose. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

As a simple 'get by ID' tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes or how it differs from related views like view_error or view_exception_chain. It is adequate but could be more informative.

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 already provides full documentation for both parameters (event_id and project_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 function: viewing detailed information about a specific event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_latest_event (which targets the most recent event) and list_error_events (which lists events).

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 when a user has a specific event ID and wants its details, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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