-
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceThis server provides tools to inspect error reports, stacktraces, and other debugging information from your Sentry account.
90,042
MIT
Sentry Issues MCP
by Leee62
The Sentry Issues MCP server allows you to retrieve and analyze Sentry issues and events with these key functions:
Get event details: Retrieve information about a specific Sentry event using its URL or ID in tiny or huge mode
List project events: Fetch multiple events for a specific project using ID or slug
Get issue details: Access information about a specific Sentry issue via URL or ID
List project issues: Retrieve multiple issues for a project or organization
LLM integration: Analyze issues or events to identify root causes or suggest fixes
Find critical issues: Query for the most dangerous issues within specified time periods
Enables retrieval and analysis of error tracking data from Sentry, providing tools to fetch individual issues by URL or ID and retrieve lists of issues from projects to help identify, analyze, and troubleshoot application errors.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Sentry Issues MCPget the most critical issue from my project in the last 24 hours"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
sentry-issue-mcp
Description
⚠️ Getting issues is deprecated as of version 1.0.5. The response structure is so similar to the event API that it's considered redundant.
This is a mcp for sentry issue.
It supports 2 tools to get a issue or list of issues.
U can let LLM analysis the Res, or u want to do.
Related MCP server: MCP Sentry
Feature
EZ size
EZ understand
EZ tiny
Tools
get_single_event
get a event detail infos, tiny mode return stack info, huge mode return all info
inputs:
url_or_id: sentry event url or sentry event id
organization_id_or_slug: sentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined
project_id_or_slug: sentry project id or slug, it can be undefined
mode: tiny or huge, it can be undefined
get_project_events
get list of events, tiny mode return id and title, huge mode return all info
inputs:
project_id_or_slug: sentry project id or slug
organization_id_or_slug: sentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined
mode: tiny or huge, it can be undefined
QuickStart
this is MCP Server Config
"mcpServers": {
"sentry-issue-mcp": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"sentry-issues-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {
"SENTRY_HOST": "<your_sentry_host>",
"SENTRY_ORG": "<your_sentry_org>",
"SENTRY_PROJ": "<your_sentry_proj>",
"SENTRY_USER_TOKEN": "<your_sentry_user_token>"
}
}
}Case
Ask LLM to analysis one issue by url or id
input "analysis the issue, and give me the reason of it, and tell me how to fix it, {sentry_issue_url}"
if ur LLM is SMART🧠, it will call tools
u will get result
Ask LLM to find Today most dangerous issue (PS: default val of sentry time period is "24h")
input "find today most dangerous issue, and give me the reason of it, and tell me how to fix it"
if ur LLM is SMART🧠, it will call tools
u will get result
License
MIT
Available Tools
2 toolsget_project_eventsC
get issue events by inputting sentry organization id or slug and sentry project name or slug
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id_or_slug | No | sentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined | |
| project_id_or_slug | No | sentry project name or slug, it can be undefined | |
| mode | No | mode for output, it can be undefined, it used to control LLM token usage | tiny |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions what inputs to provide but doesn't describe what 'get issue events' actually returns (list of events? what format?), pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from the parameter requirements for better readability.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'issue events' are, what format they're returned in, whether there are pagination considerations, or how the 'mode' parameter affects the output. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from this tool invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions organization and project inputs but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The 'mode' parameter with its 'tiny'/'huge' enum values controlling LLM token usage is only explained in the schema, not the description.
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 issue events') and the required inputs (organization and project identifiers), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_single_event' - we don't know if this tool returns multiple events vs a single event, or how they differ in scope.
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 the sibling 'get_single_event'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternative approaches. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_single_eventC
get issue event by inputting sentry issue event url or sentry issue event id
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url_or_id | Yes | sentry issue event url or sentry issue event id | |
| organization_id_or_slug | No | sentry organization id or slug, it can be undefined | |
| project_id_or_slug | No | sentry project name or slug, it can be undefined | |
| mode | No | mode for output, it can be undefined, it used to control LLM token usage | tiny |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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. It mentions the tool retrieves an issue event but doesn't describe what an 'issue event' contains, whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or any performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core functionality without 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'issue event' is, what data it returns, or how the 'mode' parameter affects output. For a tool with 4 parameters and 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'url_or_id' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'mode' with its enum values or optional fields. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get issue event by inputting sentry issue event url or sentry issue event id'. It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('issue event'), and required input format, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_project_events'.
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 like 'get_project_events'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_project_events - First observed
get_single_event
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_project_events retrieves multiple events for a project, while get_single_event retrieves a single event by its URL or ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_project_events, get_single_event) with clear, descriptive names that indicate their specific functions. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a Sentry Issues domain, as it lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or listing issues, which are core to issue management workflows. This minimal set limits functionality significantly.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for Sentry Issues, covering only event retrieval. It misses critical operations such as listing issues, creating issues, updating issue status, or deleting issues, leaving agents unable to perform basic issue lifecycle tasks.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Investigate errors, track deployments, analyze performance, and manage application monitoring
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
MCP server for AI access to SmartBear tools, including BugSnag, Reflect, Swagger, PactFlow, QTM4J.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that retrieves and analyzes Sentry.io issues, allowing users to inspect error reports, stacktraces, and debugging information from their Sentry account.222-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that connects to Sentry.io or self-hosted Sentry instances to retrieve and analyze error reports, stack traces, and debugging information.2-
- FlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables interaction with Sentry's error tracking platform to fetch and manage issue details, events, and project information through the Sentry API.4721-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Leee62/sentry-issues-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server