Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Java Decompiler Server

MCP Java Decompiler Server

by idachev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

decompile-from-path

Decompile a Java .class file from its absolute path to obtain readable source code, enabling inspection of Java bytecode.

Instructions

Decompiles a Java .class file from a given file path

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": {
      "classFilePath": "<classFilePath>"
    },
    "name": "decompile-from-path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
classFilePathYesThe absolute path to the .class file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action 'decompiles' without mentioning whether output is returned, if side effects exist, or any error behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the necessary information without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the agent receives after decompilation (e.g., decompiled source code). The current description omits this, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete despite its simplicity.

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%, with classFilePath described as 'The absolute path to the .class file'. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'decompiles' and the resource 'Java .class file', with the qualifier 'from a given file path' that distinguishes it from sibling tools decompile-from-package and decompile-from-jar. This meets the bar for specific verb+resource+scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the description implies usage for individual .class files at a specific path. The sibling tool names provide context, yet the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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