Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sentry-mcp-rs

sentry-mcp-rs

by utapyngo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Remote

get_issue_details

Retrieve detailed Sentry issue details including metadata, tags, and an optional event. Accepts an issue URL or an organization slug with issue ID.

Instructions

Retrieve detailed information about a specific Sentry issue including metadata, tags, and optionally an event. Accepts either an issueUrl OR (organizationSlug + issueId).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_issue_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idNoSpecific event ID to fetch instead of latest
issue_idNoIssue ID like 'PROJECT-123' or numeric ID (required if issue_url not provided)
issue_urlNoFull Sentry issue URL
organization_slugNoOrganization slug (required if issue_url not provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the tool is read-only (retrieve), but with no annotations, lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the issue does not exist. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that immediately states purpose and key usage information. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Tool has no output schema and no annotations, so description must compensate. It covers identification methods and high-level contents, but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear parameter roles. The description adds the constraint of mutual exclusivity between issue_url and organizationSlug+issueId, offering some extra value but not enough to exceed baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed issue info from Sentry, listing metadata, tags, and optional event. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on a single issue, though not explicitly contrasting with get_trace_details or search_issue_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?

Implicitly describes when to use via the two identification modes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, such as searching events within an issue or getting trace details.

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