Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spring Toolkit MCP

Spring Toolkit MCP

by giaffa86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_rest_controllers

List all Spring MVC and WebFlux controllers in a project directory to support code review and endpoint discovery.

Instructions

List detected Spring MVC/WebFlux controllers.

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": "list_rest_controllers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject directory to inspect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without indicating that it is read-only, requires a valid Spring project, or what happens if the path is omitted. This minimal information limits transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. While concise, it could include additional context without becoming verbose, but overall it earns its place by stating the core purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has many siblings and no output schema, the description should explain what information is returned (e.g., controller names, methods, mappings). It does not, nor does it clarify the scope of 'detected' controllers, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter 'path' ('Project directory to inspect'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'List detected Spring MVC/WebFlux controllers,' specifying the action and resource with framework specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_endpoints' (which lists endpoints) and 'spring_project_summary' (broader overview). However, it lacks explanation of what 'detected' means.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_endpoints' or 'spring_project_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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