GlitchTip MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.