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 '获取当前系统的 Java 版本信息' (gets Java version information from the current system), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires system access, permissions, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first ('获取当前系统的 Java 版本信息') followed by a brief note on returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return note 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like system dependencies or error handling. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could still benefit from more context about usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is given for zero-parameter tools when the description is clear about the action.

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 with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('Java 版本信息' meaning 'Java version information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'check_cfr_status' or 'decompile_file', which appear to be related to Java decompilation rather than version checking.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'check_cfr_status', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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