DBJavaGenix

codegen_render_service

Render Service interface and ServiceImpl Java files by passing the template context from codegen_build_context.

Instructions

渲染 Service 接口 + ServiceImpl 实现。需要先调用 codegen_build_context 获取 context。返回 2 个 java 文件。

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": {
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "codegen_render_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes	从 codegen_build_context 返回的完整模板上下文 dict。包含 className/columns/primaryKeyType/templateCategory 等字段。LLM 应原样传递,可在传入前修改字段以重新渲染。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (renders) and what it returns, but does not reveal potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting, project structure changes) or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a code generation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence captures the primary action, and the second provides a critical prerequisite and output summary. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type (2 java files). It covers the what, prerequisite, and output. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file location, overwrite behavior), which would elevate completeness for a code generation tool.

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?

The single parameter 'context' is fully described in the input schema with a detailed description of its content and origin. The description reinforces the prerequisite, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 the tool renders Service interface and ServiceImpl implementation, distinguishing it from sibling render tools like codegen_render_controller and codegen_render_dao. It also specifies the output (2 java files), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the prerequisite: call codegen_build_context first to obtain the context. This provides clear contextual usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for its pipeline role.

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