mcp-maven-deps

get_eol_status

Read-only

Check end-of-life and support status for JDK, Kotlin, Gradle, or Spring Boot versions via endoflife.date. JDK checks require an explicit vendor like eclipse-temurin.

Instructions

Check end-of-life / support status for JDK, Kotlin, Gradle, and/or Spring Boot via endoflife.date. Provide one or more of kotlin/gradle/springBoot (a version string) and/or jdk ({vendor, version}) — at least one is required. endoflife.date has no generic "java" product: JDK end-of-life is vendor-specific (e.g. eclipse-temurin, amazon-corretto, oracle-jdk, redhat-build-of-openjdk), so jdk always requires an explicit vendor. Each requested version is matched to its endoflife.date release cycle (cycle granularity varies by product — Gradle/JDK vendors cycle by major version, Kotlin/Spring Boot by major.minor) and reports isEol/eolDate/isMaintained/isLts/latestInCycle for that cycle. A version with no matching cycle, or a product/vendor unknown to endoflife.date, surfaces a clear per-item error rather than failing the whole call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jdk`	No	JDK version to check. endoflife.date has no generic "java" product — vendor is required.
`gradle`	No	Gradle version to check, e.g. "8.14.5"
`kotlin`	No	Kotlin version to check, e.g. "2.4.10"
`springBoot`	No	Spring Boot version to check, e.g. "3.5.16"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes
`capabilityUnavailable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: per-item error surfacing instead of whole-call failure, cycle-granularity variance by product, and the fact that JDK is always vendor-specific. It stops short of describing rate limits or caching, but adds solid context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the required-argument rule, then the vendor caveat, then matching/reporting behavior. Dense and every sentence carries information, though the final error-handling sentence and the cycle-granularity clause make it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, return fields need not be enumerated; the description still clarifies what is reported per cycle (isEol/eolDate/isMaintained/isLts/latestInCycle). Combined with the vendor and cycle-matching explanations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining semantics the schema cannot: why jdk requires an explicit vendor (no generic 'java' product), and how each version maps to a release cycle with product-dependent granularity (major vs major.minor).

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?

Names a specific verb ('Check end-of-life / support status') and concrete resources (JDK, Kotlin, Gradle, Spring Boot) via endoflife.date. No sibling tool covers EOL/support status, so the scope is unambiguous against the list of version/dependency tools.

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?

States the invocation constraint clearly ('at least one is required') and explains the vendor requirement for JDK. It doesn't name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, but the context for when this tool applies is clear.

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