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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads something, implying a network operation, but doesn't mention potential issues like network errors, authentication needs, file system permissions, or what happens if the target directory doesn't exist. For a download tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return statement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first. Minor improvement could be made by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity with 1 parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter default, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or dependencies. For a download operation, more context on network behavior or file system interactions 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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it explains that 'target_dir' is the download target directory and defaults to the current working directory. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here the description compensates somewhat by clarifying the default behavior. It doesn't add format details or constraints beyond what's implied, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: '下载 CFR 反编译器到指定目录' (Download CFR decompiler to specified directory). It specifies both the verb ('下载' - download) and the resource ('CFR 反编译器' - CFR decompiler), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_cfr_status' or 'decompile_directory', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether CFR needs to be installed first), when this tool should be used over checking status with 'check_cfr_status', or any exclusions. The only contextual hint is the default parameter value, but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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