arthas-mcp

by HeavenC

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

arthas_getstatic

Retrieve static field values from Java classes at runtime to inspect application state without modifying code.

Instructions

Get static field values.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "className": "<className>",
      "fieldName": "<fieldName>"
    },
    "name": "arthas_getstatic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`timeout`	No	Timeout in ms
`className`	Yes	Fully qualified class name
`fieldName`	Yes	Static field name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, requires JVM, has side effects, or any security constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at 5 words, but it lacks necessary details. Every word earns its place, but conciseness sacrifices completeness.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal, omitting return values, prerequisites, and behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 static field values' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'static field values', but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like arthas_ognl or arthas_sc which can also retrieve values.

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, such as when to use arthas_getstatic instead of arthas_method or arthas_ognl.

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