The Rollbar MCP Server integrates Rollbar error monitoring with AI tools (Claude, Cursor, VS Code, etc.), enabling you to monitor, investigate, and manage errors and deployments via natural language.
List Projects: View all Rollbar projects accessible to the configured token(s), useful for multi-project setups.
Get Item Details: Retrieve full details for a specific Rollbar item by its counter, including its most recent occurrence with stack traces and error context.
List Items: Search and filter items by status (active/resolved/muted), severity level, environment, or free-text query, with pagination support.
List Occurrences: Fetch individual occurrence instances for a Rollbar item, with cursor-based pagination and configurable response size limits.
Get Top Items: See the highest-frequency errors in a given environment over the last 24 hours for quick triage.
Get Deployments: List recent deployments to correlate deploy timing with error spikes or resolutions.
Get Version: Look up how a specific version (e.g., a git SHA) has performed in an environment, including first/last occurrence timestamps.
Get Replay: Fetch session replay metadata and payload to see what a user did leading up to an error, delivered as a file or rollbar:// resource link.
Update Item: Modify a Rollbar item's status, severity level, title, assignee, resolved version, snooze state, or owning team (requires write access).
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., "@Rollbar MCP Server Show me the top errors in production from 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.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Rollbar.
This MCP server implements the stdio server type, which means your AI tool (e.g. Claude, Cursor) will run it directly; you don't run a separate process or connect over http.
Related MCP server: GlitchTip MCP Server
Configure a single Rollbar Account Access Token and let every tool work across all projects in that account:
ROLLBAR_ACCOUNT_ACCESS_TOKEN (env var), or
accountToken (a top-level key in .rollbar-mcp.json, alongside projects/token/apiBase)
To create one: in Rollbar, go to your account settings → Account Access Tokens, create a new named, enabled token, and choose read (or read and write, if you plan to use update-item) scope. Copy the full generated secret right away, Rollbar only shows it once, and store it securely (a secrets manager or your shell's env config, not committed to source control).
{
"accountToken": "acct_tok_abc123"
}If you want tighter controls on some projects, give the account token read scope so you can read every project, then explicitly list the few projects that need update-item with their own read+write project tokens. Those override the account token for that project only, per the precedence rule below (explicit project token always wins).
{
"accountToken": "acct_tok_abc123",
"projects": [
{ "name": "backend", "token": "tok_backend_readwrite" }
]
}Project-token configs are completely unchanged by this feature: if you don't set an account token, nothing about existing single- or multi-project setups behaves any differently. The two modes can also coexist: if a project name matches an explicitly configured project that has its own token, that project's own token is always used for that project, even when an account token is also present.
Single Project: Environment variable
ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN: access token for your Rollbar project.
ROLLBAR_API_BASE (optional): override the API base URL (defaults to https://api.rollbar.com/api/1).
Multiple Project: Config file
Create .rollbar-mcp.json in your working directory or home directory, or set ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE to point to a custom path. A checked-in template is available at rollbar-mcp-example.json; copy it to .rollbar-mcp.json and fill in your real tokens.
Single project shorthand:
{ "token": "tok_abc123" }Multiple projects:
{
"projects": [
{ "name": "backend", "token": "tok_abc123" },
{ "name": "frontend", "token": "tok_xyz789" }
]
}Config file lookup order:
ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE env var
.rollbar-mcp.json in current working directory
~/.rollbar-mcp.json in home directory
ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN or ROLLBAR_ACCOUNT_ACCESS_TOKEN env var (single project or account-wide, backward compatible)
If a config file exists but is invalid, the server exits with an error instead of falling back to a lower-priority config source.
Required scopes:
Read-only tools (get-item-details, get-deployments, get-version, get-top-items, list-items, get-replay, list-projects, list-occurrences) work with a read-scope account token.
update-item requires an account token with both read and write scope: every account-token call resolves the target project via GET /projects first (read), then makes the PATCH request (write). A write-only token will fail at the project-resolution step before ever reaching the update.
As with project tokens, prefer a read-scope token unless you specifically need update-item.
If the server detects only ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN is set (no explicit account token), it makes a one-time, cached check against GET /projects to see whether that token is actually an account token; if so, account mode activates automatically. A single project-scoped token continues to work exactly as before.
list-projects(): See which Rollbar projects this server can talk to. If you're using a single project token, this just confirms the one project you've configured. If you're using an account token that can reach multiple projects, this is how you find the project name or id to pass into the other tools' project parameter.
get-item-details(counter, max_tokens?, project?): Get the full picture on a single Rollbar item: its details plus its most recent occurrence, so you don't have to look up the item and then separately fetch the latest error. Give it the item's counter (the number you see in the Rollbar UI).
max_tokens (default 20000) caps how large the occurrence data in the response can get. Some occurrences carry a lot of detail (long stack traces, request data), so this keeps a single item lookup from ballooning the response. Optional project selects which project to use, by configured name or by real project name/id in account-token mode. Example prompt: Diagnose the root cause of Rollbar item #123456
get-deployments(limit, project?): List recent deploys for a project, so you can line up when a deploy went out against when errors started or stopped happening. Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode. Example prompt: List the last 5 deployments or Are there any failed deployments?
get-version(version, environment, project?): Look up how a specific version (like a git SHA) has performed in an environment, including when it first and last showed up in occurrences. Useful for checking whether a particular release introduced or fixed an issue. Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode.
get-top-items(environment, project?): See what's actually breaking right now. Returns the items with the most occurrences in the last 24 hours for the given environment, so you can triage what to look at first instead of scanning the full item list. Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode.
list-items(status?, level?, environment?, page?, limit?, query?, project?): Search and filter Rollbar items instead of pulling the whole list. Filter by status (default active, so resolved and muted items stay out of your way), level, and environment, or search by query text. Use page and limit to control how much comes back at once. Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode.
list-occurrences(counter, limit?, page?, last_id?, max_tokens?, project?): Look up the actual occurrences behind a Rollbar item, not just the item summary. Give it the item's counter and it returns the individual instances, each with its own timestamp, environment, and error detail.
Use limit to control how many occurrences come back (default 3, max 100), and page or last_id to move through more of them. last_id is cursor-based pagination: pass the id of the last occurrence you got back, and you'll get the next batch after it. We added this because plain page numbers can skip or repeat results if occurrences shift around between calls, and last_id doesn't have that problem, so use it when you're paging through a lot of occurrences. If you pass both, last_id wins. Occurrences within a page are always ordered by timestamp (newest first), so the last one you see is reliably the right one to hand back as last_id.
Occurrence data can get big fast, especially for errors with large stack traces or request payloads. max_tokens (default 20000, minimum 100) caps roughly how large the whole response can get, in about max_tokens * 4 characters. We built this because without a cap, a handful of occurrences could blow way past what fits in a conversation. Every occurrence you asked for still shows up in the response, though. Instead of dropping any of them to stay under budget, the tool shrinks the biggest ones down step by step, keeping the most useful fields (level, environment, exception message, and similar) for as long as it can before falling back to just an id and timestamp. A top-level _truncation field tells you when this happened. If your limit and max_tokens genuinely can't fit even a minimal version of every occurrence, you'll get a clear error telling you to lower limit or raise max_tokens, instead of a silently incomplete page.
Some Rollbar items are actually groups of several items bundled together. Rollbar's public API can't correctly list occurrences for these yet, so calling this tool on a group item returns an explicit group_item_not_supported message saying so, instead of quietly showing you an empty list that looks like the item has no occurrences at all.
Optional project when multiple projects are configured. Example prompt: Show me the last 3 occurrences of item #24265
get-replay(environment, sessionId, replayId, delivery?, project?): Fetch a session replay's metadata and payload for a specific session, so you can see what a user actually did leading up to an error.
By default (delivery="file"), the replay JSON is written to a temp file on disk and the tool returns the file path. This works everywhere, but the file sticks around until you clean it up yourself. Set delivery="resource" instead to get back a rollbar:// link that MCP-aware clients can read directly, with no file left behind, but this only works when the server only ever talks to a single project (either single-project-token mode, or account-token mode with exactly one project). If you're set up for multiple projects, stick with delivery="file" and pass project explicitly.
Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode. Example prompt: Fetch the replay 789 from session abc in staging.
update-item(itemId, status?, level?, title?, assignedUserId?, resolvedInVersion?, snoozed?, teamId?, project?): Change an item's status, level, title, assignee, resolved version, snooze state, or owning team, so you can act on an item directly instead of switching to the Rollbar UI.
This needs write access: a project token with write scope, or an account token with both read and write scope. A read-only token will fail here even though it works fine for every other tool. Optional project when multiple projects are configured or in account-token mode. Example prompt: Mark Rollbar item #123456 as resolved or Assign item #123456 to user ID 789.
Configure your .mcp.json as follows.
Using an environment variable (single project):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<project read/write access token>"
}
}
}
}Optionally include ROLLBAR_API_BASE in the env block to target a non-production API endpoint.
Using an account access token (every project on the account, no per-project tokens needed):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_ACCOUNT_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<account access token>"
}
}
}
}Using a config file (single or multiple projects):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE": "/path/to/.rollbar-mcp.json"
}
}
}
}Add to your ~/.codex/config.toml:
[mcp_servers.rollbar]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"]
env = { "ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN" = "<project read/write access token>" }Or with a config file:
[mcp_servers.rollbar]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"]
env = { "ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE" = "/path/to/.rollbar-mcp.json" }Configure your .junie/mcp/mcp.json as follows (env var or ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE for config file):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<project read/write access token>"
}
}
}
}Configure Cursor’s MCP servers (Cursor Settings → Features → MCP, or search for “MCP” in settings). Use either an environment variable or a config file.
With an environment variable (single project):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<project read/write access token>"
}
}
}
}With a config file (single or multiple projects):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE": "/path/to/.rollbar-mcp.json"
}
}
}
}Restart Cursor (or reload the window) after changing MCP settings. To use a local build instead of npx, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
Configure your .vscode/mcp.json as follows (env var or ROLLBAR_CONFIG_FILE for config file):
{
"servers": {
"rollbar": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@rollbar/mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ROLLBAR_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<project read/write access token>"
}
}
}
}Or using a local development installation, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
Get deployments data from Rollbar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | Number of Rollbar deployments to retrieve | |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
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 implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly confirm safety, mention pagination behavior despite the limit parameter, describe the return format, or note any rate limits or auth requirements.
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 with no redundancy or filler. However, it is arguably too minimal, lacking the additional sentences needed to address behavioral transparency or usage guidelines.
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 presence of numerous sibling tools dealing with different Rollbar entities (items, projects, versions), the description fails to clarify what deployments are or how they relate to these other resources. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding.
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 limit and project adequately documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but this is acceptable given the complete schema coverage establishes the baseline of 3.
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 verb (Get) and resource (deployments data) and identifies the external system (Rollbar). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like get-version or list-items, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a 'deployment' versus other Rollbar entities.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-version or list-projects. The optional 'project' parameter lacks usage guidance (e.g., when to omit it), and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get item details for a Rollbar item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| counter | Yes | Rollbar item counter | |
| max_tokens | No | Maximum tokens for occurrence data in response (default: 20000). Occurrence response will be truncated if it exceeds this limit. | |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, yet discloses no behavioral traits. Fails to explain the truncation behavior mentioned in the max_tokens schema description, what 'occurrence data' means, or the structure/format of returned item details. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but safety profiles and return schemas remain undocumented.
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?
While brief (single sentence), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence wastes the opportunity to add value beyond the tool name, failing to front-load critical distinctions or behavioral warnings that an agent would need to select this tool correctly.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what details are returned and how they relate to Rollbar's data model (items vs occurrences). It omits this entirely. For a 3-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description inadequately compensates for missing structured metadata about return values.
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%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds no parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain that 'counter' is a unique identifier, or clarify the project auto-detection behavior). However, schema adequately documents all three parameters including the optional nature of 'project' and truncation logic for 'max_tokens'.
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 item details for a Rollbar item' essentially restates the tool name (tautology) with the addition of the domain 'Rollbar'. It fails to specify what constitutes 'item details' (e.g., error metadata, stack traces, occurrences) or how this differs from siblings like list-items or update-item.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Critical distinction missing between this single-item retrieval and list-items (presumably for multiple items), or when project parameter is required versus optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get replay data for a specific session replay in Rollbar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | Environment name (e.g., production) | |
| sessionId | Yes | Session identifier that owns the replay | |
| replayId | Yes | Replay identifier to retrieve | |
| delivery | No | How to return the replay payload. Defaults to 'file' (writes JSON to a temp file); 'resource' returns a rollbar:// link. | |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the read operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It omits crucial details about the delivery modes (file vs resource), payload size limits, or what format the replay data takes.
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 single 9-word sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical behavioral context undocumented.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters with complex delivery options and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to compensate by explaining return values, payload structure, or behavioral differences between 'file' and 'resource' delivery modes, leaving significant 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters including the enum values for 'delivery'. The description implies required identifiers ('specific session replay') but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
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 states a clear verb ('Get'), target resource ('replay data'), and scope ('specific session replay in Rollbar'). It distinguishes from siblings like list-items or get-deployments by specifying 'replay' context, though it could clarify relationship to get-item-details.
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 context ('for a specific session replay') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites for the identifiers, or comparison to sibling tools like get-item-details that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get list of top items in the Rollbar project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | No | Environment name (default: production) | production |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
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 fails to explain what criteria define 'top' items, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or the structure of returned data. The description only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get' but provides no substantive 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and appropriately front-loaded. However, it prioritizes brevity over clarity—while not verbose, it wastes the single sentence on vague terminology ('top items') rather than precise functional description.
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?
Lacking annotations and output schema, the description should explain the return format and sorting logic. It fails to clarify the critical distinction between 'top items' and regular item listing, and omits operational details like default result limits or time ranges, leaving significant gaps for a 2-parameter tool.
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 'environment' and 'project' parameters fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the semantic load.
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 states the basic action ('Get list') and resource ('top items'), but fails to define what 'top' means (frequency? severity? impact?). Given the sibling tool 'list-items', this ambiguity prevents the agent from selecting the correct tool. It restates the tool name with slightly more detail but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this versus the sibling 'list-items' tool, or when the optional 'project' parameter is required. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get version details for a Rollbar project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version string (e.g. git sha) | |
| environment | No | Environment name (default: production) | production |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
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 fails to indicate whether this is a safe read operation, what happens if the version is not found, rate limits, or what specific details are returned. The phrase 'Get version details' implies data retrieval but lacks explicit safety or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence wastes no words and immediately states the core function. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is arguably under-sized for the tool's complexity, though the sentence itself is efficiently constructed.
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?
For a tool with three simple string parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally characterize the returned version details (e.g., deployment metadata, commit info). The absence of this information leaves a gap in contextual completeness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., valid formats for version strings, environment constraints), but the schema adequately documents all three parameters including the optional nature of 'project' and default for 'environment'.
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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('version details for a Rollbar project'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get-deployments' or clarify what constitutes a 'version' in the Rollbar context (e.g., code deployment vs. API version).
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 like 'get-deployments', nor does it mention prerequisites such as project configuration requirements. Zero guidance on selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all items in the Rollbar project with optional search and filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by item status (e.g., 'active', 'resolved', 'muted') (default: 'active') | active |
| level | No | Filter by severity levels (e.g., ['error', 'critical', 'warning']) | |
| environment | No | Filter by environment (e.g., 'production', 'staging') (default: 'production') | production |
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default: 1) | |
| limit | No | Number of items per page (default: 20, max: 5000) | |
| query | No | Search query to filter items by title or content | |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but fails to explain key behaviors: it does not clarify what 'items' represent (errors/exceptions), describe the pagination model (despite page/limit parameters), mention rate limits, or explain the default 'production' environment 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?
While the single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded, it is inappropriately brief given the lack of annotations and output schema. The description fails to compensate for missing structured metadata with necessary explanatory context, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 seven parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits explanation of the pagination behavior, the nature of Rollbar 'items', how results are ordered, and guidance on the project parameter's conditional requirement.
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, so the description does not need to replicate parameter details. The phrase 'optional search and filtering' broadly acknowledges the filtering capabilities, but adds no specific semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.
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 verb (List) and resource (items in the Rollbar project), and mentions 'optional search and filtering' which hints at the tool's capabilities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get-top-items or get-item-details, though the 'all items' phrasing implies comprehensiveness versus 'top'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-item-details (for specific items) or get-top-items (for trending issues). The description lacks prerequisites, such as when the 'project' parameter is required versus optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List configured Rollbar projects available to this MCP server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. While 'configured' and 'available to this MCP server' hints at access scope, it fails to clarify read-only safety, pagination behavior, error cases, or the return structure.
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 of nine words with no redundancy. It leads with the action verb and immediately identifies the resource, placing critical information first.
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?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description adequately identifies what is returned (projects), but lacks explanation of how the results relate to sibling operations or what 'configured' implies for the integration setup. No output schema exists to compensate.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rubric. The input schema is trivially complete with no additional semantic context required from the description.
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 verb (List) and resource (configured Rollbar projects) with scope limitation ('available to this MCP server'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list-items' by targeting 'projects' rather than 'items', though explicit contrast would strengthen this.
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, nor does it mention that this is a prerequisite discovery tool likely needed before calling project-specific siblings like 'list-items' or 'get-deployments'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an item in Rollbar (status, level, title, assignment, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | The ID of the item to update | |
| status | No | The new status for the item | |
| level | No | The new level for the item | |
| title | No | The new title for the item | |
| assignedUserId | No | The ID of the user to assign the item to | |
| resolvedInVersion | No | The version in which the item was resolved | |
| snoozed | No | Whether the item should be snoozed (paid accounts only) | |
| teamId | No | The ID of the team to assign as owner (Advanced/Enterprise accounts only) | |
| project | No | Project name (optional when only one project is configured) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose mutation safety, idempotency, or return values. Critically omits account-tier restrictions visible in schema (paid/Enterprise-only features for 'snoozed' and 'teamId').
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action. Efficient though 'etc.' is vague given specific account restrictions exist in schema. Appropriate length for overview but misses opportunity to highlight critical constraints.
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?
Inadequate for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Fails to address success/failure behavior, required permissions, or the fact that some parameters require paid/Enterprise accounts despite these being documented in the schema parameters.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. Description provides high-level categorization ('assignment' covering both user and team assignment) but adds no semantic depth beyond schema (e.g., explaining status lifecycle or snooze behavior).
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?
Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('item in Rollbar') with parenthetical examples of updatable fields. Distinguishes from sibling get/list tools by operation type, though could clarify distinction from get-item-details.
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?
Lists mutable attributes (status, level, title, assignment) but provides no guidance on when to use versus read-only alternatives or prerequisites like item existence. No mention of partial vs full update semantics.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.5.0get-deploymentsget-item-detailsget-replayget-top-itemsget-versionlist-itemslist-projectsupdate-itemEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Rollbar resources and actions, such as get-deployments for deployments, list-items for items, and update-item for modifications. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool without confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens, such as get-deployments, list-items, and update-item. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, allowing agents to easily understand and navigate the toolset.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for error monitoring and management in Rollbar, covering key operations like listing, getting, and updating items, deployments, and projects. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for core Rollbar workflows, including CRUD-like operations for items and basic project and deployment management. A minor gap exists in missing tools for creating or deleting items or projects, but agents can still perform essential monitoring and update tasks effectively.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Plan Salesforce deploys, open pull requests and trigger pipelines from your AI client.
Direct access to Cypress tests results and accessibility reports in your AI workflow.
Investigate errors, track deployments, analyze performance, and manage application monitoring
Connect AI assistants to GitHub - manage repos, issues, PRs, and workflows through natural language.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rollbar/rollbar-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
