Java Project Runner MCP

project_build

Run Maven builds for registered Java projects, defaulting to package with tests skipped and allowing custom goals, profiles, and test-skip options.

Instructions

Run Maven build for a registered project (default goal package, -DskipTests by default)

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "project_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	Maven lifecycle goal(s), default package
`profile`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`skipTests`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does add real value: it discloses that the default goal is 'package' and that tests are skipped by default, which materially affects what happens. It says nothing about whether the build blocks, how long it may run, where output/logs surface (project_logs exists), or what failure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the two defaults an agent most needs, and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a 4-parameter build-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits blocking/async behavior, error semantics, log location, and the meaning of 'profile', all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it supplies the default for skipTests (absent from the schema) and restates the goal default. The 'profile' and 'projectId' parameters remain undocumented in both places, leaving half the surface unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run Maven build') plus the scope ('for a registered project'), which separates it from lifecycle siblings like project_start or project_stop. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for related operations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as project_start or project_logs. The only implied constraint is that the project must already be registered, which an agent must infer from the phrase 'registered project'.

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

Deploy Server