Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
java-jdtls-mcp-server

java-jdtls-mcp-server

by SachieWang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

configure_jdt_ls

Update Eclipse JDT.LS settings dynamically, such as enabling source downloading, to adjust Java language server behavior without restart.

Instructions

Dynamically update JDT.LS configuration (e.g. enable source downloading).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "settings": "<settings>"
    },
    "name": "configure_jdt_ls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
settingsYesThe settings object to send to the server

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 mentions 'dynamically update' but does not disclose whether changes are persisted, require a restart, have side effects, or require specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be structured to highlight key points more clearly for an AI agent. Still, it is very concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple schema (one parameter, no output) and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on error states, success indicators, or whether the update is atomic. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'settings' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the example 'enable source downloading', which is a hint but not a formal description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (dynamically update) and the resource (JDT.LS configuration) with a concrete example (enable source downloading). It distinguishes from siblings, which are about file operations, diagnostics, and search, not configuration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for runtime configuration updates, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. Since no sibling tools deal with configuration, the context is acceptable but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools