Skip to main content
Glama
ej-technologies

JProfiler

by ej-technologies
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Local

Server Quality Checklist

83%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v16.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct task: discovering JVMs, creating heap dumps, and preparing profiling sessions. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_jvms, create_heap_dump, prepare_profiling.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimalist but covers the core tasks of discovery, heap dumping, and profiling. Could benefit from an attach tool, but still reasonable.

    Completeness2/5

    Critical missing tools: check_status and get_heap_data are referenced in descriptions but not provided, creating dead ends in the workflow.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 2 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs both dumping and loading, and references a multi-step process. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., disk usage, file creation) or prerequisites (e.g., permissions).

    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 concise: two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action, and logically structured around the workflow. Every sentence adds value.

    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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role in a larger workflow and references sibling tools. It could be more complete by describing return values or error conditions, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to understand its usage.

    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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by mentioning list_jvms for discovery and the default behavior when containerNameOrId is specified but pid is omitted, but this information is already in the schema descriptions.

    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 'dumps the heap' to an HPROF file and loads it for analysis. It specifies the resource (JVM heap) and action (dump and load), and distinguishes from siblings by outlining the specific workflow involving check_status and get_heap_data.

    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 provides a clear workflow: call create_heap_dump, then check_status, then get_heap_data. It also suggests using list_jvms to discover JVMs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the given workflow.

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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 explains what is returned and where it looks, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. It vaguely describes query behavior without explicit reassurance of non-destructiveness.

    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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second gives usage guidance. It is efficiently front-loaded.

    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 no output schema, the description covers return contents (command line and PID). It could be improved by specifying the output format (e.g., array of objects). Still, it's complete enough for a simple list tool that feeds into other tools.

    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 coverage is 100% for the one optional parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's role in filtering to Docker containers, and implicitly that absence means local JVMs. This goes beyond the schema's terse description.

    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 lists locally running JVMs or those in Docker containers, providing command line and PID. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like attach and create_heap_dump which are actions to take after listing.

    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 says 'Use the information to call attach or create_heap_dump,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives, which would be helpful.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns a 'jvmParameter' and mentions automatic recording saving. Does not mention destructive actions or auth, but overall transparent.

    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?

    Multiple sentences but each adds essential information. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly tighter but still efficient.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    No output schema, but description clearly states the return value (JSON with 'jvmParameter'). Covers prerequisite actions and subsequent steps. Complete for a tool with 2 optional parameters.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the optional delay and maximumDuration parameters with clear behavior (delay from JVM start, max duration vs termination/stopRecording).

    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?

    Clearly states it prepares a profiling session by retrieving a JVM parameter for specific subsystems (cpu, jdbc, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_heap_dump and list_jvms.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Provides step-by-step instructions: retrieve parameter, add to Java process, run, then call check_status. Explicitly tells what not to do (do not create/modify files, do not load snapshot file).

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jprofiler-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jprofiler-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ej-technologies/jprofiler-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server