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

java-jdtls-mcp-server

by SachieWang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

java_get_diagnostics

Retrieve errors and warnings for a Java file using active LSP diagnostics or cached results.

Instructions

Get diagnostics (errors/warnings) for a file. This tool now attempts to pull diagnostics actively from the server if supported (LSP 3.17+), otherwise falls back to cached results from asynchronous publishing.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "java_get_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesAbsolute path to the file or a URI (e.g. jdt://...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds behavioral context such as attempting active pull from server (LSP 3.17+), and fallback to cached results. This discloses version dependency and behavior variation, which is valuable beyond the tool's basic function.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the behavior and fallback.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (active vs. cached) and version dependency. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to use correctly, though mentioning the return format (list of diagnostics) could improve completeness.

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% and already describes the parameter (filePath) as absolute path or URI. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 'Get diagnostics (errors/warnings) for a file', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('diagnostics'), and scopes it to a single file. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'java_get_workspace_diagnostics' which targets workspace-level diagnostics.

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 provides context on behavior (active pull vs. cached) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'java_get_workspace_diagnostics'. Usage guidance is implied but not formalized.

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