该 MCP 服务器将 Honeybadger 错误跟踪与 Cursor IDE 集成，允许您直接从开发环境中获取和分析错误。
已安装 Node.js 18+
具有 API 访问权限的 Honeybadger 帐户
带有 MCP 支持的 Cursor IDE
Related MCP server: Jira Context MCP Server
git clone git@github.com:vishalzambre/honeybadger-mcp.git
cd honeybadger-mcp
npm installnpm run build全局安装：
npm install -g honeybadger-mcp然后在Cursor中进行配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"honeybadger": {
"command": "honeybadger-mcp",
"env": {
"HONEYBADGER_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here",
"HONEYBADGER_PROJECT_ID": "your_project_id"
}
}
}
}基于项目的安装（替代）：
如果您希望将 MCP 服务器作为项目依赖项进行管理：
npm install honeybadger-mcp在这种情况下，Cursor mcp_servers.json中的命令将指向项目node_modules中的本地安装：
{
"mcpServers": {
"honeybadger": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["./node_modules/honeybadger-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"HONEYBADGER_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here",
"HONEYBADGER_PROJECT_ID": "your_project_id"
}
}
}
}在项目根目录中创建一个.env文件：
# Required: Your Honeybadger API key
HONEYBADGER_API_KEY=your_api_key_here
# Optional: Default project ID (can be overridden per request)
HONEYBADGER_PROJECT_ID=your_project_id
# Optional: Custom Honeybadger URL (defaults to https://app.honeybadger.io)
HONEYBADGER_BASE_URL=https://app.honeybadger.ioAPI密钥：
创建一个新的个人身份验证令牌
复制.env文件的令牌
项目编号：
前往 Honeybager 中的项目
项目 ID 在 URL 中： https://app.honeybadger.io/projects/{PROJECT_ID}
或者在项目设置中找到它
将 MCP 服务器添加到你的 Cursor 配置中。编辑你的~/.cursor/mcp_servers.json （或等效文件）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"honeybadger": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/honeybadger-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"HONEYBADGER_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here",
"HONEYBADGER_PROJECT_ID": "your_project_id"
}
}
}
}本节内容现已更新或移除，因为已在上文中介绍过。如果您更喜欢使用旧的方式从本地路径进行全局克隆和安装，您仍然可以这样做，但为了更方便地更新和管理，建议使用已发布的 npm 包。
如果从本地克隆安装：
# Navigate to your cloned honeybadger-mcp directory
npm install -g . # Installs from the current directory
# Then configure in Cursor as before
# ... (Cursor configuration for local global install)配置完成后，您可以在 Cursor 中使用这些工具：
List recent unresolved errors from Honeybadger in production environmentGet details for Honeybadger fault ID 12345Analyze Honeybadger issue 12345 and provide fix suggestionsGet the latest 5 occurrences for Honeybadger fault 12345list_honeybadger_faults列出最近的故障，并可选择按环境和解决状态进行过滤。
参数：
project_id （可选）：项目 ID
limit （可选）：故障数量（默认值：20，最大值：100）
environment （可选）：按环境过滤
resolved （可选）：按已解决状态过滤
get_honeybadger_fault获取有关特定故障的详细信息。
参数：
fault_id （必需）：故障 ID
project_id （可选）：项目 ID
get_honeybadger_notices获取特定故障的通知（错误发生）。
参数：
fault_id （必需）：故障 ID
project_id （可选）：项目 ID
limit （可选）：通知数量（默认值：10，最大值：100）
analyze_honeybadger_issue提供全面的分析和修复建议。
参数：
fault_id （必需）：故障 ID
project_id （可选）：项目 ID
include_context （可选）：包含请求上下文（默认值：true）
列出最近的错误：“显示生产中最新未解决的错误”
分析具体错误：“分析 Honeybadger 故障 12345 并提出修复建议”
获取错误上下文：“获取故障 12345 的最新发生情况及其完整上下文”
审查和修复：通过分析来理解和修复代码中的问题
身份验证错误：验证您的 API 密钥是否正确且具有适当的权限
未找到项目：请检查您的项目 ID 是否正确
连接问题：验证 Honeybadger API 的网络访问
直接运行服务器查看错误信息：
node dist/index.js检查 Cursor 日志中是否存在与 MCP 相关的问题：
macOS： ~/Library/Logs/Cursor/
Windows： %APPDATA%\Cursor\logs\
Linux： ~/.config/Cursor/logs/
安全存储 API 密钥，切勿将其提交到版本控制
尽可能使用特定于环境的 API 密钥
考虑使用只读 API 令牌进行此集成
定期轮换您的 API 密钥
要扩展此 MCP 服务器：
在setupToolHandlers()方法中添加新工具
实现相应的处理方法
更新工具列表和文档
使用 Honeybadger 设置进行全面测试
对于以下问题：
此 MCP 服务器：检查代码和配置
Honeybadger API ：请参阅Honeybadger API 文档
Cursor MCP 集成：查看 Cursor 文档
Comprehensive analysis of a Honeybadger issue with fix suggestions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fault_id | Yes | The ID of the fault to analyze | |
| project_id | No | Optional project ID (uses env var if not provided) | |
| include_context | No | Include request context and parameters in analysis |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analysis' and 'fix suggestions' imply a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (analysis with suggestions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'comprehensive analysis' entails or how parameters affect it). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'comprehensive analysis' of a Honeybadger issue and provides 'fix suggestions', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_honeybadger_fault' or 'get_honeybadger_notices', which might provide similar data without analysis or suggestions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this analysis tool over the sibling 'get' tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a specific fault/error from Honeybadger by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fault_id | Yes | The ID of the fault to fetch | |
| project_id | No | Optional project ID (uses env var if not provided) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetch') but does not describe what 'fetch' entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch a specific fault/error from Honeybadger by ID'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or response format, which are crucial for a tool that fetches data. While the purpose is clear, the overall context for effective use by an AI agent is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('fault_id' and 'project_id') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('a specific fault/error from Honeybadger by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_honeybadger_faults' (which presumably lists multiple faults) and 'get_honeybadger_notices' (which fetches notices rather than faults). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'by ID,' suggesting it's for retrieving a single, known fault. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_honeybadger_faults' or 'analyze_honeybadger_issue,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch notices (occurrences) for a specific fault
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fault_id | Yes | The ID of the fault to fetch notices for | |
| project_id | No | Optional project ID (uses env var if not provided) | |
| limit | No | Number of notices to fetch (default: 10, max: 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetch') but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) or explain what the tool returns, which is critical for a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation. The high schema coverage is insufficient to compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (fault_id, project_id, limit) with their purposes, optionality, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('notices (occurrences) for a specific fault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_honeybadger_fault' (which fetches fault details) and 'list_honeybadger_faults' (which lists faults). It precisely defines the scope of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'analyze_honeybadger_issue' or explain scenarios where fetching notices is appropriate versus other operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List recent faults from Honeybadger
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Optional project ID (uses env var if not provided) | |
| limit | No | Number of faults to fetch (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| environment | No | Filter by environment (e.g., production, staging) | |
| resolved | No | Filter by resolved status |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List recent faults' but doesn't explain what 'recent' means (e.g., time range), how results are ordered, pagination behavior, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. For a list operation with filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a list operation. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('recent faults from Honeybadger'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_honeybadger_fault' or 'get_honeybadger_notices', which likely retrieve specific items rather than lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_honeybadger_issue' or 'get_honeybadger_fault', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
analyze_honeybadger_issueget_honeybadger_faultget_honeybadger_noticeslist_honeybadger_faultsScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: analyze_honeybadger_issue provides analysis and fix suggestions, get_honeybadger_fault retrieves a specific fault by ID, get_honeybadger_notices fetches occurrences for a fault, and list_honeybadger_faults lists recent faults. The descriptions make it easy to distinguish between analyzing, fetching specific items, fetching related data, and listing collections.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: analyze_honeybadger_issue, get_honeybadger_fault, get_honeybadger_notices, and list_honeybadger_faults. The naming is predictable and readable, using clear verbs like 'analyze', 'get', and 'list' paired with specific nouns.
With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a Honeybadger server, covering core operations like listing, fetching, and analyzing faults. It's slightly on the minimal side but well-scoped for basic error monitoring tasks, though additional tools for actions like creating or updating issues might be expected in a more comprehensive set.
The tool set covers key read operations for Honeybadger: listing faults, fetching specific faults and their notices, and analyzing issues. However, it lacks write operations (e.g., creating, updating, or resolving faults) and broader management features, which are minor gaps that agents might need to work around for full lifecycle coverage.
Error tracking for Laravel and PHP apps. Let your agent fetch errors, stack traces and context.
The bug mediator for AI-built apps: plain-English diagnosis + a ready fix, in your editor.
Product Hunt for AI tools. Search, submit, upvote from Claude Code or Cursor.
Investigate errors, track deployments, analyze performance, and manage application monitoring
