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 only states that the tool checks status and returns information, without detailing aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what specific status information is included. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 very concise with two short lines: one stating the purpose and another indicating the return. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return statement more seamlessly.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), no parameters, and no annotations, the description provides a basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral context. It's minimally adequate for a simple status-check tool but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool's purpose as '检查 CFR 反编译器状态' (check CFR decompiler status), which provides a clear verb ('check') and resource ('CFR decompiler status'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_java_version' or 'download_cfr_tool' that might also provide status-related information, making it somewhat vague in context.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools such as 'decompile_directory' or 'get_java_version' that might overlap in functionality, but the description lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving usage unclear.

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