io.github.L1ch404/jolink-runtime
Supports Gradle Java builds, including multi-project dependencies, for launching, restarting, and running fast tests on Gradle-based Java projects.
Click on "Deploy 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., "@io.github.L1ch404/jolink-runtimeRestart the Java app with hot swap and show the latest logs"
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.
joLink Runtime
English | 简体中文
A lightweight, headless Java IDE for AI coding agents.
Closing the loop for autonomous Java development.
Design principle: Everything exists to reduce uncertainty for the LLM.
joLink does not provide an editor UI. Instead, it exposes incremental compilation, testing, application startup and breakpoint debugging through MCP to the coding agent you already use—so it can run the code, inspect real state, and verify its own changes.
Persistent compilation state and HotSwap reduce repeated full rebuilds and JVM restarts. When tests, logs and endpoint responses are not enough, the agent can use breakpoints and inspect exception events, stack frames and variables.
Free and local. It does not require a joLink account, model API key, inference provider, or separate agent application.
Install
Open a new chat in your coding agent.
Click the copy button in the code block below, paste the entire prompt into that chat, and send it.
Follow this guide:
https://github.com/L1ch404/jolink-runtime/blob/main/INSTALL.md
Install joLink MCP and its English Skill for my current agent.
Use user-level installation by default and preserve existing configuration.
Check the saved configuration and Skill file. If this chat cannot load the new MCP or Skill,
stop and tell me how to reload the client; leave connection verification to a chat after reloading.If the agent reports that a reload is needed, reconnect MCP or restart the client as instructed, then open a new chat. Configuration complete but not yet loaded is not an installation failure. In the loaded chat, you can send:
Verify the existing joLink MCP and jolink-java Skill in this client without reinstalling them.
Call the joLink status tool exposed by this client once, and check its Skill list or loading facility.
If either is still unavailable, report what is missing and stop; do not write a standalone verification script.
Do not start applications or run tests.The guide provides official client-specific locations and examples for Codex,
Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code/Copilot, CodeBuddy, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Cline,
Roo Code and Windsurf. All start MCP with uvx jolink-runtime@latest and use the same
English Skill; no plugin bundle or universal installer
is required. MCP performs the work; the Skill helps the agent discover and use it.
The guide also covers uv setup, preserving configuration, reconnection and verification.
For Chinese instructions, use the Chinese installation guide.
Related MCP server: mcdev-mcp
Why joLink
Coding agents are good at reading and changing code, but they can become stuck in a loop of static assumptions:
analyze
-> patch
-> assume the patch works
-> patch againjoLink adds the missing runtime feedback loop:
analyze
-> change
-> run
-> observe
-> update the hypothesis
-> change again if necessaryThis is useful when:
the Java application is not running yet;
a code change needs to be verified against real behavior;
repeated patches have not solved the problem;
endpoint results do not match the source-code interpretation;
logs or tests are insufficient to explain the executed path;
business naming is inconsistent and static search cannot find the relevant code;
deeper runtime evidence such as breakpoints, stacks, or variables is needed.
The goal is not to use a debugger for every problem.
Start with the cheapest useful evidence:
application status
-> logs and actual outputs
-> exception events
-> executed path
-> breakpoints, stack frames, and variablesDebug deeper only when necessary.
What it can do
joLink exposes four focused MCP tools:
java_application— project launch, compile-aware restart (HotSwap by default), stop, and attach;java_fast_test— selected Java tests, result details and cancellation, without an application launch;java_status— Java process discovery, compact status, on-demand details and logs;java_debugger— breakpoints, exception events, stacks, variables, and resume.
After editing a managed project, call java_application(action=restart).
It incrementally compiles changes in the existing JDT workspace and prefers
HotSwap; incompatible changes restart the JVM using those same compiled outputs.
Set hotswap=false to force process/application reinitialization. The result's
apply_method distinguishes HotSwap from a real restart. See
restart workflow.
Fast Test uses a Maven or Gradle Probe only when its small configuration cache is absent or changed. The exported test Build World and JDT workspace persist across MCP processes. JDT keeps main and test classes current and runs explicit JUnit 4/5 or TestNG tests in an isolated JVM:
java_fast_test(action=run,
project_path=/path/to/project,
source_files=[src/main/java/example/Service.java],
tests=[example.ServiceTest#works], timeout=60)
-> if unfinished, choose a suitable waiting interval, then call java_status(action=status)
-> read diagnostics/failures with java_fast_test(action=result, test_run_id=...)
-> cancel with java_fast_test(action=cancel, test_run_id=...)java_status(status).fast_test stays compact. If compilation fails before run
returns, its reply includes compiler diagnostics directly. Errors that occur after
a timeout reply and failed-test details are available through result; follow
the summary's next_action or use its test_run_id, without rerunning tests.
Full compiler file lists are omitted. Only the active
and most recently completed test attempts are retained in the current MCP session;
an unavailable ID returns TEST_RUN_NOT_FOUND.
passed=false means the selected tests executed and found a failure; it is not
a Tool infrastructure error. Fast Test does not require or modify a running
application. The current JDT supports Java 8 through 26 source/target levels;
product regression covers 8, 11, 17 and 21, including separate main/test levels.
Target libraries and application/test JDKs still follow the project. Supported
build layouts include Maven jar projects, one
explicitly selected jar module in a standard Reactor, and Gradle Java builds
including multi-Project dependencies (tested with 7.4.2, 8.10 and 8.14).
Maven and Gradle multi-module launch and Fast Test resolve the selected
module's upstream dependencies into separate JDT projects in one Worker.
Unchanged modules reuse their output; JavaBuilder propagates changed APIs and
constants to affected downstream sources. Local module dependencies use current
workspace output rather than installed JARs; Maven also supports test-jar
dependencies. See Gradle multi-module flow and evidence.
Demo
From an unexpected API response to runtime investigation.
Reading source code tells an agent what might happen. Running the application and inspecting its state helps the agent check what actually happens.
The screenshots below show a debugging example: an agent starts a Java application, checks an endpoint, notices an unexpected result, and uses joLink to investigate the execution path.
This is a constructed demonstration scenario, not a record of an actual business incident. Some sensitive information in the screenshots has been redacted for privacy.
1. Start the application and check the actual response
The agent uses java_application to launch the application and java_status
to check its state, then sends an HTTP request to a sample risk-scoring endpoint.
For score=80, the expected category is High Risk, but the agent reports
Medium Risk. It checks additional boundary values before investigating further.

2. Set a breakpoint and inspect runtime variables
The agent uses java_debugger to set a breakpoint on the Medium Risk branch,
triggers another request, and inspects the variables after the breakpoint is hit.
The conversation shows score=80 while execution is in the Medium Risk
branch. This gives the agent runtime evidence to investigate its
boundary-condition hypothesis, rather than relying only on source-code assumptions.

This example demonstrates application startup and runtime investigation. It is not a Fast Test performance benchmark; the screenshots cover the investigation stage, not the subsequent fix and re-verification.
Private diagnostics
joLink keeps stdout exclusively for MCP JSON-RPC. Python lifecycle logs and tracebacks are also written to a bounded private rotating file:
Windows: %LOCALAPPDATA%\jolink-runtime\logs\mcp.log
macOS/Linux: $XDG_CACHE_HOME/jolink-runtime/logs/mcp.log
or ~/.cache/jolink-runtime/logs/mcp.logstatus does not return mcp.log paths or logging configuration, even with details=true.
Read the local file at the path above when diagnosing joLink itself. A diagnostic-file
failure never prevents the MCP server from starting. The file is limited to
4 MiB with three rotated backups; stdout remains untouched.
java_status(action=status) is a compact overview: readiness, process/debug state,
active operation and recent restart/Test summaries. Read java_status(action=status, details=true)
for current launch errors, full last_reload, compiler/cache settings and timings.
Completed launch/restart calls already return their own detailed result; the
flag is useful when an operation continued after the synchronous reply timeout.
Neither call reads or embeds build logs. Use java_status(action=logs, source=build)
for the current launch's build log, or omit source to read application output;
both accept tail. Restart summaries include a next_action pointing to details.
launch/restart replies include previous_startup_ms: the prior successful JVM
startup duration saved locally for the same launch, captured before
the new operation. It excludes Probe/JDT compilation. With ready_port it
measures startup through observed TCP readiness; otherwise it only measures JVM/
JDWP startup. HotSwap and failed startups do not replace this observation.
It is written once when startup succeeds to a small JSON file under the joLink
cache's startup-timings/ directory. Stop, a new conversation or an MCP restart
does not discard it. The next launch reads that file; no expiry, build-input
validation or repeated status writes are involved. An unseen launch returns
null. Treat it as a waiting reference, not a prediction or a readiness check.
Set JOLINK_LOG_LEVEL in the MCP server's environment and restart it:
WARNING (default) keeps warnings/errors only; INFO records JDT
cache/source/build/save summaries and native FULL fallback reasons;
DEBUG also retains detailed Worker output; ERROR keeps errors only;
OFF disables joLink diagnostic logging. Application logs and tool results are
unaffected. The Worker uses a fixed incremental propagation limit of 10 rounds.
See JDT build diagnostics.
The public actions are:
launch
stop
restart
attach
detach
breakpoint
exception
wait_event
threads
stack
variables
resume
cleanup_debug_state
processes / status / logsThese actions support:
launching a Java application as an owned JVM process;
launching a Maven/Gradle project with
project_pathandmain_class, or optionally importing an IntelliJ IDEA Application/Spring Boot configuration, exporting its Build World without running Maven/Gradle compilation, compiling with JDT before JVM startup, and launching without packaging a fat JAR;stopping or restarting an application after code changes;
compiling detected edits in a persistent private JDT session and applying compatible loaded class definitions with HotSwap;
inspecting application status and logs;
attaching to an already-running local JVM;
setting semantic breakpoints and exception watches;
waiting for runtime events;
inspecting threads, stack frames, and variables;
resuming suspended execution;
cleaning up debug state safely.
Current status
Current package version:
0.1.0a7Status:
Alpha / controlled dogfoodThe first adapter targets local Java applications through JDWP.
The current MCP implementation includes:
stdio transport;
stdout reserved exclusively for MCP protocol messages;
JSON
TextContentwith matchingstructuredContent;Runtime
ok=falsemapped to MCPisError=true;cancellable
wait_event;optional two-phase waiting with
armandawait;an optional loopback HTTP trigger started only after JDWP is armed, with a one-call
blockingshortcut or explicitarm/await;wait-scoped JDWP requests;
ownership-aware shutdown;
automatic cleanup and resume paths;
persistent JDWP packet framing across short polling timeouts.
The current two-phase implementation is intended for controlled dogfood. Known cancellation, cleanup-preemption, handle-publication, and response delivery limitations are tracked in:
docs/stage-2.1.2-lifecycle-backlog.md
Do not use this alpha release for unattended production JVM debugging.
Requirements
JDK 8 or newer
uv manages the Python environment automatically. A separate Python
installation is normally not required.
Confirm the requirements with:
java -version
uv --versionQuick start
After the MCP server is connected, confirm that these tools are available:
java_application
java_fast_test
java_status
java_debuggerOpen a local Java project and ask the coding agent:
Use joLink to start this Java application, inspect its status and logs,
and verify the latest code changes against real runtime behavior.For a problem that has already survived multiple attempted fixes:
Do not apply another speculative patch yet.
Use joLink to run the current Java application and collect actual runtime
evidence. Start with status, logs, tests, and actual outputs. Re-evaluate the
root-cause hypothesis before changing the code again.For deeper investigation:
Use joLink to reproduce this issue.
Start with actual outputs and logs. If that evidence is insufficient, use a
breakpoint or exception watch, inspect the relevant stack frames and variables,
then resume or clean up the suspended JVM.joLink starts and observes the Java application. The coding agent may use its normal HTTP, terminal, browser, or testing tools to trigger the scenario.
For a method-body edit in an application launched with project_path, the
agent can avoid a full Maven rebuild/restart:
java_status(action=status; confirm runtime_active and compile_ready=true)
-> java_application(action=restart)
-> if still running, java_status(action=status; observe last_reload)
-> trigger a fresh request
-> verify the new runtime behaviorrestart automatically detects and incrementally compiles source changes, then
uses HotSwap by default. Deleted/unloaded classes, generated resource changes or
explicit JVM rejection select a real restart using those already compiled outputs.
hotswap=false forces process reinitialization. No pending code changes restart
without compiling. Compilation errors leave the old process running. Lost
HotSwap replies remain unknown rather than being mistaken for explicit rejection.
The call waits up to timeout (maximum 30 seconds); if unfinished, it returns
restart_started plus the existing reload_id, observable through
active_operation and last_reload. apply_method distinguishes HotSwap from
process restart. Completed builds immediately save JDT state and source indexes
in the local persistent workspace. There are no extra class-output copies.
HotSwap does not rerun initialization or refresh Spring metadata; verify with a
fresh request. Breakpoints in redefined classes become stale and must be reset.
The locked JDT Worker is installed into a content-addressed user cache on
first use. Valid Eclipse bundles are reused from older joLink caches; missing
bundles are downloaded and verified, while the product Worker and Equinox
configuration ship inside the Python package. A changed build configuration or
unavailable session refreshes via the existing project launch path. Use
restart(hotswap=false) when startup/framework state must be recreated.
The product uses Eclipse 4.40 / JDT 3.46 with matching APT bundles. Its Worker
targets Java 17 bytecode and defaults to a private, pinned Temurin 21 runtime,
installed once in the user cache. Maven/Gradle and application/test JVMs keep
their project JDKs. JOLINK_WORKER_JAVA_HOME can select a corporate-provided
64-bit JDK 17+ instead. Old Lombok 1.18.20 compatibility issues remain recorded,
not silently fixed by replacing project dependencies. See
JDT 3.46 and private Worker JDK for offline setup
and actual compatibility results.
First-time JDK/Eclipse downloads use their pinned official URLs by default.
Set JOLINK_DOWNLOAD_MIRROR=cn to try TUNA, then the joLink mirror at
https://7355608.net/jolink/assets, then upstream on connection/transfer failure.
A custom mirror base URL uses that mirror followed by upstream; official
(or an empty value) uses upstream only. No IP/geolocation detection is performed.
Existing SHA256 checks and installed caches are unaffected. TUNA access was
blocked during local verification; selecting cn does not guarantee its availability.
See runtime mirror setup.
The imported IDEA Make/Build flag does not cause Maven or Gradle compilation. On the first launch, the Probe exports compiler/runtime facts and JDT performs FULL compilation. Later launches reuse the persisted Probe model and use saved source size/mtime to detect edits. Changes to tracked Maven/Gradle configuration refresh the model. Untracked external scripts and hidden inputs remain recorded in the compatibility follow-up; cache deletion is not a routine startup or installation step.
See JDT-first startup for the current single-module startup and cache behavior.
Typical workflow
A normal verification flow looks like this:
read the code
-> change the code
-> java_application(launch or restart, ready_port=<application port>)
-> if startup_state=starting, call java_status(status) until ready
-> if startup_state=failed, inspect java_status(logs)
-> trigger a test or endpoint
-> inspect the actual result
-> update the diagnosisA deeper debugging flow looks like this:
run or attach
-> for an owned HTTP application, confirm startup_state=ready
-> configure a breakpoint or exception watch
-> for a managed local HTTP request:
wait_event(wait_mode=blocking, http_trigger=...)
-> otherwise:
wait_event(wait_mode=arm)
-> trigger the scenario after status=armed
-> wait_event(wait_mode=await, wait_handle=...)
-> inspect stack frames and variables
-> resume or cleanup_debug_stateFor a local HTTP endpoint, blocking composes the existing
arm -> trigger -> await lifecycle into one call:
{
"action": "wait_event",
"wait_mode": "blocking",
"timeout": 30,
"http_trigger": {
"method": "POST",
"url": "http://127.0.0.1:8080/example",
"json_body": {"id": 1},
"timeout_seconds": 30
}
}Use explicit arm followed by await when an external action must occur
between arming and observation. A terminal result consumes its wait_handle;
the handle observes Runtime events and is not an HTTP-response handle.
For an HTTP application launched by joLink, distinguish process/debugger startup from application TCP readiness:
{
"action": "launch",
"jar_path": "target/app.jar",
"jdwp_port": 5005,
"ready_port": 8080,
"timeout": 30
}For java_application(launch/restart) and java_fast_test, timeout limits the synchronous result wait, including
runtime preparation and compilation. It defaults to 30 seconds; larger values
are accepted but wait only 30 seconds. Zero returns after task submission.
The original task continues after this reply deadline. Test Runner execution
has a separate internal 300-second limit; timeout no longer configures it.
If still running, choose a waiting interval appropriate to the stage (for
example using sleep or PowerShell Start-Sleep), then query java_status.
Do not rapidly poll or resubmit the task. The old readiness-wait argument has
been removed, not retained as an alias.
Direct JAR/classpath launches still perform their existing process creation
and JDWP handshake before returning a task observation. timeout=0 skips the
additional readiness wait; it does not make that initial handshake asynchronous.
If the process is alive but the application port is not accepting connections,
the result remains successful with startup_state=starting; the process is
kept alive and next_action=status. Each later status call probes the stored
port again. startup_state=ready means only that the configured loopback TCP
port accepted a connection; it does not prove that every dependency, cache, or
business endpoint is healthy.
When ready_port is omitted, joLink reports startup_state=unverified rather
than claiming application readiness. An HTTP trigger remains allowed for
attached and otherwise unverified JVMs, but its result includes a warning.
When configured readiness is still starting, joLink rejects an HTTP trigger
without sending it.
Runtime safety
joLink 0.1.0a7 is designed for local, trusted development environments.
Current safety boundaries:
MCP transport is stdio;
JDWP access is limited to local JVMs;
one joLink server controls one Java target at a time;
a JVM launched by joLink is treated as an owned process;
an owned JVM may be stopped by joLink;
an externally started JVM is attached, resumed, and detached;
an attached JVM is never intentionally terminated;
raw JDWP requests are armed only while a waiter owns them; logical breakpoint and exception definitions persist until removed or cleaned up;
built-in HTTP triggers accept only
http://127.0.0.1, do not use environment proxies or redirects, and never return the request URL, headers, body, or their raw values in validation errors;a configured
ready_portmust be unused before launch and must differ from the JDWP port; the TCP probe is local and does not send an application request;response_headers_receivedreports only the HTTP status/response headers; joLink does not read or return the response body;cancelling an HTTP client wait closes joLink's side of the connection but cannot guarantee that server-side business work has been undone;
successful
cleanup_debug_stateincludes its own debug-state verification; a separate HTTP cleanup state may remainsettlingwithout delaying JVM cleanup;after receiving a
suspension_id, the agent must callresumeorcleanup_debug_state.
Do not expose the JDWP port to an untrusted network.
Do not use the current alpha release for remote or production debugging.
Client notes
CodeBuddy
Some current CodeBuddy environments may initially display:
Description: No descriptionUse the host's tool-definition loading/search facility to obtain the actual schema.
Do not infer arguments from a tool name alone. The independently installed
jolink-java Skill provides a discovery and workflow entry point; it does not
replace the MCP connection or guarantee tool selection. Follow the
installation guide for the specific CodeBuddy surface (CLI, IDE or
editor plugin), rather than assuming their configuration files are interchangeable.
Development
Clone the repository and install development dependencies:
uv sync --extra dev --lockedRun the default test suite:
uv run pytestRun the stdio server from the source checkout:
uv run jolink-runtimeEquivalent module entry point:
uv run python -m jolink_runtime.transport.stdioA generic MCP client configuration can launch it directly from a checkout:
{
"mcpServers": {
"jolink-runtime": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/absolute/path/to/jolink-runtime",
"run",
"jolink-runtime"
]
}
}
}Tests
After changing joLink source, do not kill an MCP server and assume an existing host tool handle will reconnect. Start a fresh server from the current worktree through the real stdio protocol:
uv run python scripts/jolink_mcp_dev_client.pyThe client prints the Git commit, dirty-worktree state, source fingerprint,
Python executable, and stderr path before accepting JSONL tools/call
requests. Send {"command":"quit"} to close the client and trigger normal
server cleanup. This is the canonical interactive verification path for
uncommitted code; a Codex/IDE MCP connection should be established only after
the code under test is frozen.
The real subprocess acceptance test exercises the MCP stdio boundary:
uv run pytest -q tests/e2e/test_stdio_mcp.pyIt performs:
initialize
-> tools/list
-> java_status(status)
-> close the stdio client
-> wait for the server process to exitThe heavier real MCP/JVM suite is opt-in locally:
JOLINK_RUN_MCP_JAVA_E2E=1 \
uv run pytest -q -m mcp_java_e2e tests/e2e/test_stdio_mcp_java.pyThe managed Temurin 21 Worker and Java 8 application lifecycle have standalone deep validators (Worker JDK and application/target JDK are different roles):
uv run python scripts/validate_jdt_worker_matrix.py \
--target-java-home <jdk8> \
--worker-java-home <jdk21>
uv run python scripts/validate_jdt8_product_mcp.py \
--jdk8-home <jdk8> \
--maven-home <maven-home>
JOLINK_RUN_FAST_TEST_E2E=1 \
JOLINK_FAST_TEST_JAVA8_HOME=<jdk8> \
uv run pytest -q -m fast_test_e2e \
tests/e2e/test_fast_test_product.py
uv run python scripts/validate_fast_test_build_jdk_matrix.py \
--target-java8-home <jdk8> \
--build-java-home <jdk8> \
--build-java-home <jdk11> \
--build-java-home <jdk17>
uv run python scripts/build_jdt_worker_release.py \
--java-home <jdk8> \
--maven <maven-executable> \
--gradle <gradle-executable>The canonical CI environment for the heavier suite is:
Linux
Python 3.11
Application/target JDK 8/11/17/21; managed Worker JDK 21Contracts
See current documentation, product Java sources and builds, and historical research records. Archived experiment commands and limits are not the current product interface.
MCP v0.1:
docs/mcp-contract-v0.1.mdRuntime lineage 2.4.0:
docs/runtime-lineage-contract-2.4.0.md
License
joLink's own code is MIT-licensed. Downloaded Eclipse/Temurin runtimes and installed Python dependencies retain their own licenses. See third-party notices and corresponding sources. Offline runtime kits must be accompanied by the matching source kit and notices.
Available Tools
4 toolsjava_applicationA
Launch, attach, restart, stop, or detach Java applications. For Maven/Gradle, use project_path plus main_class without IDEA, or select an IDEA launch. Use java_fast_test to run tests without launching an application. Launch and restart wait up to timeout (at most 30 seconds), returning the result if finished or the original background task if still running. After editing a managed Maven/Gradle project, use restart: it detects changed sources, incrementally compiles them, and prefers HotSwap (hotswap=true by default). Incompatible changes use the same compiled outputs to restart the JVM. Set hotswap=false for a real process restart and application reinitialization. apply_method reports hotswap or restart; HotSwap does not refresh framework state or count as a JVM startup. previous_startup_ms reports the prior successful startup duration saved locally for this launch, or null if unavailable. It survives MCP restarts and excludes compilation. A pending restart returns reload_id; observe active_operation and last_reload using java_status. Direct JAR/classpath launches restart their existing artifact without source compilation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | No | Local Java PID required by attach. | |
| host | No | Debug connection host; localhost only. | 127.0.0.1 |
| action | Yes | Runtime operation to perform. | |
| hotswap | No | For restart, default true: incrementally compile edits and prefer HotSwap; if changes cannot be hot-swapped, restart the JVM with those compiled outputs. False forces a JVM restart after compilation. Use false to reinitialize application state or reload framework/startup configuration. No pending code changes also restart the JVM without recompiling. | |
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for the launch/restart result in this call. Defaults to 30; values above 30 wait only 30 seconds without error. Zero returns immediately after submission. On expiry the same task continues in the background. | |
| vm_args | No | JVM arguments for launch/restart. Replaces imported or current arguments; [] clears them. | |
| app_args | No | Application arguments for launch/restart. Replaces imported or current arguments; [] clears them. | |
| jar_path | No | Executable JAR for direct launch/restart; omit with project_path. | |
| classpath | No | Classpath for direct launch/restart with main_class; omit with project_path. | |
| java_home | No | Application JDK home directory for project_path launch. | |
| jdwp_port | No | Local Java debug port for launch or attach. | |
| main_class | No | Fully qualified application entry class. With project_path, launch without requiring IDEA configuration; otherwise uses classpath. | |
| ready_port | No | Local application TCP port for launch/restart readiness; must differ from jdwp_port. | |
| launch_name | No | Optional exact case-sensitive IDEA launch configuration name; requires project_path. With main_class and no launch_name, no IDEA launch configuration is required. Explicit main_class, java_home, app_args and vm_args override imported values. | |
| build_system | No | Optional authoritative build system for project launch; specify maven or gradle when both exist. | |
| project_path | No | Maven or Gradle project directory. Supply main_class for an IDEA-independent launch, or import an IDEA launch configuration (launch_name selects one). Compiles changed sources before starting the application. Do not combine with direct jar_path or classpath. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses timeout behavior (max 30s, returns result or background task), hotswap vs full restart semantics, persistence of previous_startup_ms across MCP restarts, and pending restart's reload_id. Minor gaps like permission/authentication needs are not mentioned, but given the tool's local nature, this is adequate.
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 long but dense and well-structured. It front-loads the core actions, then organizes details logically: Maven/Gradle usage, timeout behavior, restart/hotswap, persistence, and direct launches. Each sentence earns its place, and the flow mirrors how an agent would reason about the tool, avoiding redundancy.
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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, 5 actions, multiple launch modes), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values (result vs background task, previous_startup_ms, reload_id), integration with java_status, and all parameter interactions. Without an output schema, it adequately explains what an agent should expect back, leaving little ambiguity for a well-designed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining that project_path compiles changed sources, that hotswap defaults to true but false forces a JVM restart, and that timeout above 30 waits only 30 seconds. It also clarifies interplay between launch_name, main_class, and project_path, which the schema alone does not.
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 opens with a precise verb set ('Launch, attach, restart, stop, or detach Java applications'), clearly identifying the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing test runs to java_fast_test and status checks to java_status, so an agent can immediately tell it apart.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use java_fast_test to run tests without launching an application', and detailed instructions for Maven/Gradle launches (project_path plus main_class vs IDEA launch). It also explains when to set hotswap=false for a real restart, covering alternatives and conditions directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
java_debuggerA
Observe executed paths and runtime state with breakpoints, exception events, stacks, and variables. Always resume or clean up every suspension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Debug connection host; localhost only. | 127.0.0.1 |
| line | No | Source line for breakpoint set/removal. | |
| action | Yes | Runtime operation to perform. | |
| caught | No | Watch caught exceptions. | |
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for an event. | |
| uncaught | No | Watch uncaught exceptions. | |
| bp_action | No | Breakpoint operation. | set |
| jdwp_port | No | Local Java debug port for launch or attach. | |
| wait_mode | No | blocking waits directly; with http_trigger it performs arm, trigger, and await in one call. Use arm then await with its wait_handle when an external action is needed after event waiting is armed. Resume every suspension. | blocking |
| item_limit | No | Maximum list/set/array items. | |
| max_frames | No | Maximum stack frames. | |
| request_id | No | Exception-watch identifier returned by set/list. | |
| frame_index | No | Frame index for variables. | |
| thread_name | No | Optional fallback selector for stack/variables. Omit it to use the active suspension's event-hit thread. Exact names are preferred; otherwise a unique prefix or substring must identify one JVM thread. The selected thread must be suspended for stack/variables to succeed. | |
| wait_handle | No | Active observation handle returned by arm or a nonterminal blocking result. | |
| http_trigger | No | Optional loopback request started only after event waiting is armed. Use with blocking for one-call arm/trigger/await, or with arm when work must occur before a later await. It is rejected while configured application readiness is starting; unverified readiness is allowed with a warning. Never send the same request again. | |
| include_this | No | Include this in variables. | |
| breakpoint_id | No | Breakpoint identifier returned by set/list. | |
| class_pattern | No | Class name/pattern for breakpoint set or removal. | |
| include_proxy | No | Allow proxy classes in breakpoint matching. | |
| suspension_id | No | Active suspension id returned by wait_event/status. Pass it to stack, variables, and resume so stale observations are rejected; stack/variables use its event-hit thread when thread_name is omitted. | |
| exception_class | No | Exception class in Java name, JVM path, or signature form. | |
| map_entry_limit | No | Maximum map entries. | |
| max_value_depth | No | Object expansion depth. | |
| exception_action | No | Exception-watch operation. | set |
| include_generated | No | Allow generated classes in breakpoint matching. | |
| allow_broad_caught | No | Allow noisy broad caught-exception watches. | |
| semantic_collections | No | Render supported Java collections logically. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavior: the tool creates suspensions and mandates cleanup/resume, which is beyond schema information. However, it does not disclose other potential effects (e.g., attaching to JVM, port usage, or that breakpoints may alter execution). The explicit cleanup warning is valuable but incomplete for a tool with 28 parameters and multiple actions.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately state the critical safety requirement. There is zero redundancy, and the instruction about resuming/cleaning up is placed where it deserves emphasis. Every word contributes to the tool's correct usage.
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 description is quite sparse for a tool of this complexity (28 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects). It doesn't outline a typical workflow (e.g., set breakpoint → wait_event → stack → resume) or clarify how the action enum relates to the parameters. The schema individually documents parameters but doesn't tie them together. The description provides a high-level overview and a safety rule, but an agent would need to infer the sequence from parameter names and enum choices. This is only partially complete.
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%, so each parameter already has a thorough description in the schema. The main tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that; it only reinforces the cleanup requirement. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific purpose: 'Observe executed paths and runtime state with breakpoints, exception events, stacks, and variables.' This clearly identifies the tool as a debugger. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like java_fast_test or java_application, but the function is evident and distinct, so it earns a 4 for being clear without explicit sibling differentiation.
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 includes a critical usage directive: 'Always resume or clean up every suspension.' This is a direct guideline for correct operation, but it does not address when to choose this tool over alternatives. There's no mention of usage context (e.g., 'when you need to debug', or 'instead of java_fast_test'). It provides implied usage context but no explicit selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
java_fast_testA
Run selected Java tests in Maven or Gradle projects, incrementally compiling changed sources. Supports JUnit 4/5 and TestNG. No application launch is required, and an existing application is left running. Provide project_path and tests (Class or Class#method); action defaults to run. First-time preparation and compilation can take minutes; subsequent calls reuse unchanged results. Waits up to timeout (maximum 30 seconds); unfinished work returns its test_run_id and continues in the background. Observe it with java_status or cancel it here using action='cancel' and the same test_run_id. If compilation fails before run returns, it includes compiler diagnostics directly. java_status stays compact; use action='result' with test_run_id for background error diagnostics and failed-test details without rerunning tests. This is not the complete Maven/Gradle verification or packaging lifecycle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tests | No | Explicit Fast Test selectors as fully qualified Class or Class#method. Fast Test v1 supports JUnit 4/5 and TestNG. | |
| action | No | Omit or use run to execute tests; use result with test_run_id to read diagnostics and failure details without rerunning; use cancel to stop that test run. | run |
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for this test result: default 30, values above 30 wait only 30, zero submits immediately. Expiry leaves the same task running. This controls how long the call waits, not the test execution time limit. | |
| test_run_id | No | Test run ID returned by java_fast_test; required for action='cancel' or 'result'. Results are retained for the active and most recently finished run in this MCP session. | |
| build_system | No | Optional authoritative build system for tests; specify maven or gradle when both exist. | |
| project_path | No | Maven project or Gradle Wrapper project directory containing the selected tests. No IDEA launch configuration or running application is required. | |
| source_files | No | Optional changed Java source paths relative to project_path, including module prefixes. May include added, edited, or deleted main/test files. Normally omit: changes are detected automatically. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses incremental compilation, caching behavior ('subsequent calls reuse unchanged results'), async background continuation, timeout clamping to 30 seconds, compile-failure diagnostics, and that an existing application is left running. This is a comprehensive behavioral contract for an async tool.
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 dense but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers invocation, performance, timeout, background behavior, observation, and limitations in a logical order. No filler or repetition.
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 complex async tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, cancellation, result retrieval, background execution, and error diagnostics. The only gap is that it does not explicitly describe the success response payload for a normal run, though test_run_id and compiler diagnostics are covered.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: test selector format ('Class or Class#method'), action defaults to 'run', timeout semantics ('values above 30 wait only 30, zero submits immediately'), and when test_run_id is required. It also clarifies that source_files should normally be omitted, which is valuable guidance.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Run selected Java tests in Maven or Gradle projects, incrementally compiling changed sources.' It differentiates from siblings with 'No application launch is required' and 'This is not the complete Maven/Gradle verification or packaging lifecycle.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from java_application and java_status.
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?
Provides clear context for use: 'Provide project_path and tests', and explains when to use java_status for observation and action='result' for background diagnostics. It also states an exclusion ('not the complete Maven/Gradle verification or packaging lifecycle'). However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like java_application or java_debugger, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
java_statusA
Discover local Java processes, inspect a compact application/build overview with status, or request current launch/restart details with status and details=true. Use logs with source=application (default) or source=build for log text. status omits build-log text and detailed launch/restart results. It includes only a Fast Test summary; read test details with java_fast_test(action='result', test_run_id=...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Include JVM arguments; slower and more verbose. | |
| tail | No | Lines from the selected application/build log tail. Returns truncation and scan metadata. | |
| action | Yes | status returns a compact overview; use details=true for launch/restart details; logs reads a bounded log tail. | |
| filter | No | Optional case-insensitive process filter. | |
| source | No | For logs: application output (default), or the current project launch's build log. | application |
| details | No | For status: include current launch/restart diagnostics, configuration and detailed results. Does not rerun work; use logs for log text. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: status omits build-log text and detailed launch/restart results, includes only a Fast Test summary, and logs is the path for actual log text. The only flaw is that the 'status omits...' sentence is ambiguous about the default details=false case, making it slightly less transparent than it could be.
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 three sentences and front-loads the main actions before diving into omissions and alternatives. It is dense but not bloated; the third sentence could be crisper with an explicit 'by default' qualifier, but overall every sentence earns its place.
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 status/log tool with no output schema, the description covers the three action modes, the default source, the details behavior, and the alternative for test details. Minor gaps remain around return shape and the ambiguous details default, but the schema covers most parameter-level details, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds useful cross-parameter meaning by linking details=true to status, source=application/build to logs, and status vs logs behavior. It does not need to re-explain tail or full because the schema already documents those clearly.
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 names the tool's main actions: discover processes, inspect a status overview, request launch/restart details with details=true, and read logs. It also routes test-detail reads to java_fast_test, which helps distinguish it from a sibling. It loses a point because the sentence 'status omits build-log text and detailed launch/restart results' is unqualified and can be read as contradicting the earlier details=true option.
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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use logs for log text, use status for the compact overview, use details=true for launch/restart details, and use java_fast_test for test details. It also states that status omits build-log text and detailed results, providing clear exclusions. This is strong alternative routing.
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.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
java_application - First observed
java_debugger - First observed
java_fast_test - First observed
java_status
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly separate purpose: fast tests, application lifecycle, status/log inspection, and debugging. Cross-references such as using java_status to observe test runs are explicit and do not create ambiguity.
All tools use the same java_ prefix and snake_case convention, and the second element is a stable noun or noun phrase. The naming pattern is predictable even though it is resource-oriented rather than verb-first.
Four tools is well-scoped for a Java runtime development assistant. Each tool bundles related operations such as run/cancel/result and launch/restart/stop, so the count feels complete rather than sparse.
The main development loop is covered: run tests, launch/restart apps, inspect status/logs, and debug. Minor gaps exist because the tools deliberately exclude full Maven/Gradle verification and packaging, and there is no explicit test discovery operation.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Persistent memory and cross-session learning for AI coding assistants (hosted remote MCP).
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Roadmap, tasks, releases and user feedback your coding agent reads and writes over MCP.
Flash and run real firmware on physical embedded dev boards from an AI agent, over MCP.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEmpower any MCP-compatible AI Agent(MCP Client) with engineering-grade capabilities to understand, modify, run, and deliver real-world code repositories.465 PyPI1,125Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that empowers AI coding agents to work effectively with Minecraft mod development, providing static analysis of decompiled source code and runtime interaction with a running Minecraft instance.3197 npm14MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables reproducible evaluation of AI coding agents by exposing repository inspection, code editing, test running, and deterministic verification through MCP tools.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access unified development tools including code generation, documentation synchronization, test case rendering, and architecture graph queries through a single MCP server.-