FigTreeKit-MCP

check_figtree

Check Java 8+ and the figtree_patched.jar, returning actionable hints; optionally test an explicit JAR path instead of auto-detection.

Instructions

Check Java 8+ and the figtree_patched.jar; return actionable hints.

Args: jar_path: Optional explicit JAR path to check instead of auto-detection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_figtree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jar_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral burden. 'Check' and 'return actionable hints' imply a non-mutating diagnostic, but the description never confirms whether it modifies the environment, downloads anything, or requires permissions, and it omits any cost or latency expectations.

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?

Two short lines with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the Args block is compact. Slightly terse for the amount of behavioral information an annotation-free tool needs, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single-parameter surface is simple. Still, with no annotations the description should have clarified side effects (does the check only report, or also fix/install) to be complete for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does: it explains jar_path is optional, is an explicit path, and overrides auto-detection. That is the key semantic the bare 'string' schema lacks, though format expectations (absolute vs relative) are unstated.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (check) and concrete resources (Java 8+ and figtree_patched.jar) plus the outcome (actionable hints), which is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as setup_figtree or get_environment, so an agent must infer which diagnostic to call.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to setup_figtree or get_environment, and no prerequisites. The only routing hint is the optional jar_path override, which is about invocation, not tool selection.

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