Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spring Toolkit MCP

Spring Toolkit MCP

by giaffa86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

spring_code_review

Generates a pragmatic code review report for Spring Boot projects by scanning the directory. Output in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Generate a pragmatic Spring Boot code review report.

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": "spring_code_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject directory to review.
formatNomarkdown

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions generating a report, without details on side effects, duration, permissions, or output format beyond the name. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not use any formatting to highlight key aspects, and while efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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's complexity (two parameters, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the report contains, how it is generated, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without sufficient context to decide or invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not elaborate on the parameters 'path' and 'format'. Although the schema describes 'path' as 'Project directory to review', 'format' has no description and only an enum with a default. The description should explain the expected values and impact, which it fails to do.

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 generates a 'pragmatic Spring Boot code review report', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'spring_project_summary' and 'analyze_project_structure' which are more focused on listing and analysis rather than generating a review report.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'spring_project_summary' or 'inspect_application_properties'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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