MCP server for Airbroke error tracking platform, providing tools to query and manage projects, notices, occurrences, and search functionality
The Airbroke MCP server exposes 12 tools for error tracking and project management via HTTP transport. However, the server has critical gaps in definition quality: tool descriptions are present but lack specificity for LLM optimization, parameter schemas are not visible in the provided source code, and error handling guidance is absent. The codebase shows tool definitions split across lib/mcp/tools/* files, but without access to the actual schema registrations, parameter definitions, and output structures, scores are capped conservatively. The server is HTTP-based (good transport), uses @modelcontextprotocol/server 2.0.0 (current), but the tool definitions themselves lack the rigor expected for production agent interaction.
No visible input schemas for any of the 12 tools. Without explicit parameter definitions, LLMs cannot determine valid input types, required fields, constraints, or acceptable values.
Tool descriptions are generic and lack LLM optimization. 'get_project' (presumed) lacks context on: what project data is returned, when to use vs list_projects, dependencies (do I need project_id first?), and what the response structure contains.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 47 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Destructive tools (delete_project) lack confirmation or dry-run support. Agents make mistakes, a confirm_before_execute pattern prevents catastrophic errors.' No evidence of permission gates or recovery tools.
No visible error handling guidance. Tool definitions do not document what errors are possible, whether they are retryable, or how the agent should recover.
list_* tools lack pagination parameters and response structure documentation. Without visible schemas, cannot confirm pagination is supported.
'search' tool name is overly generic. Specific names like 'search_notices' or 'search_occurrences' would clarify intent.
No visible parameter naming consistency. If create_project accepts 'project_name', does search accept 'name' or 'project_name'? No evidence of human-friendly identifiers (names, emails) vs opaque IDs.