Extract detailed information from a Maven JAR file, including manifest and optional bytecode analysis.
Analyze a specific jar file and extract detailed information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Maven version | |
| group_id | Yes | Maven group ID | |
| artifact_id | Yes | Maven artifact ID | |
| include_bytecode | No | Include bytecode analysis | |
| include_manifest | No | Include JAR manifest | |
| summarize_large_content | No | Summarize large content automatically |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyze' and 'extract detailed information,' leaving unclear whether this is read-only, whether remote downloads occur, or what the response contains.
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 a single sentence with no redundancy and is appropriately front-loaded with the main action. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague, but the structure itself is concise and free of filler.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling list, the description is too minimal to be complete. It omits output format, behavioral expectations, and distinctions from related extractor tools, leaving the agent to rely on the name and parameters alone.
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?
All six parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'analyze a specific jar file and extract detailed information.' However, it does not enumerate what information is extracted or distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_jar_structure and extract_class_info.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 16 related sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, so an agent gets no routing cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.