Java Decompiler MCP Server

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 behavioral traits such as multi-threading support, default output directory, and progress display, but it does not cover aspects like error handling, file format limitations, or performance implications. The description adds useful context but is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured list of parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters and the tool's purpose, but it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases or output format hints). The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but additional context would enhance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all 5 parameters by explaining their purposes, defaults, and recommendations (e.g., 'save_to_file' is recommended). However, it lacks details on parameter constraints or interactions, such as valid file paths or thread count limits.

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 tool's purpose: '反编译多个 .class 或 .jar 文件（支持多线程）' (decompile multiple .class or .jar files with multi-threading support). It specifies the verb ('反编译'), resources ('.class or .jar files'), and scope ('multiple files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'decompile_file' (single file) and 'decompile_directory' (directory-based).

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 clear context for usage by specifying it handles multiple files with multi-threading, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decompile_directory' or 'decompile_file'. It implies usage for batch processing but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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