Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bugsnag MCP Server

Bugsnag MCP Server

by tgeselle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

view_exception_chain

Trace the complete sequence of linked exceptions in a Bugsnag event using its project and event IDs to diagnose error propagation.

Instructions

View the full chain of exceptions for an 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_exception_chain"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
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. It discloses no behavioral traits beyond the read-only nature implied by 'View'. It does not explain whether the chain is exhaustive, how it is ordered, or any performance characteristics.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant information. 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks output format details (e.g., list vs. tree, inclusion of stack traces) and with no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for the 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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions ('Bugsnag event ID', 'Bugsnag project ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('full chain of exceptions') scoped to an event. This distinguishes it from siblings like view_stacktrace and view_error, which focus on different aspects of an error/event.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like view_stacktrace or view_event.

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