buildBackendPackages Java backend projects with Maven, supporting RuoYi framework. Produces a jar file named with date and SVN revision for use in CI/CD pipelines.
对后端Java项目进行Maven打包，支持若依框架。打包结果为带有日期和SVN版本号的jar文件。
使用场景：
单独对后端项目进行打包
在CI/CD流程中分步执行
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revision | Yes | SVN版本号 | |
| projectName | Yes | 项目名称 | |
| projectRoot | Yes | 本地工程的根路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the output artifact (jar with date and SVN revision) and the build system (Maven), adding useful context. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, error behavior, or the return format, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a short list of use cases. No fluff is present, and the key information is front-loaded, though the usage scenarios add only modest value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the build output but fails to specify what the tool returns or outputs to the caller, nor any preconditions like Maven being installed, leaving agents to guess about execution results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already described in the schema. The description does not add further detail about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships, so it provides no value beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs Maven packaging for a backend Java project, mentions RuoYi framework support, and specifies the output is a jar file with date and SVN version. This distinct action and resource make it easy to differentiate from the sibling buildFrontend, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the generic buildPackage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides two usage scenarios: standalone backend packaging and stepwise execution in CI/CD, giving some context for when to use the tool. However, it does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives, leaving differentiation between buildBackend and buildPackage/buildFrontend to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.