Skip to main content
Glama
vltansky

GlitchTip MCP Server

by vltansky
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves all issues, while the other fetches the latest event for a specific issue. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the prefix 'glitchtip_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase (issues, latest_event). This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, adhering to a clear convention throughout the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a monitoring or error-tracking domain like GlitchTip. Essential operations such as creating, updating, or resolving issues are missing, which limits the server's utility and suggests an incomplete implementation.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for error tracking. While it allows reading issues and events, it lacks CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete issues) and other key functionalities like searching or filtering, which are critical for comprehensive agent workflows in this domain.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    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. 'Get all issues' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what format the returned data takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

    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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all issues'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a list of issues. It doesn't explain what an 'issue' entails in GlitchTip, the return format, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

    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 the single parameter 'status' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'all' means in context or how filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    The description 'Get all issues from GlitchTip' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (issues from GlitchTip), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'glitchtip_latest_event', which suggests it might be for retrieving a single recent event rather than all issues. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'glitchtip_latest_event' or explain scenarios where one would choose 'get all issues' over 'get latest event'. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves the latest event but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'latest' means (e.g., chronological order). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data access.

    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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

    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?

    Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation without additional inference.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'issueId' parameter documented as 'The issue ID to get the latest event for'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the target resource ('latest event for a specific issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'glitchtip_issues', which could be a broader issues-related tool, so it misses full sibling distinction.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'glitchtip_issues' or any other context for usage, leaving the agent with no explicit or implied direction.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

glitchtip-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

glitchtip-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vltansky/glitchtip-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server