Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Java Project Runner MCP

Java Project Runner MCP

by vinsmoke-sanji59
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_list

List registered Java/Spring Boot projects from the local project registry, with an optional keyword filter for id, name, or path.

Instructions

List registered Java/Spring Boot projects from ~/.java-project-runner/projects.json

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "project_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordNoOptional filter against id/name/path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the data source (~/.java-project-runner/projects.json), implying a read-only filesystem-backed operation, but does not state behavior when the file is missing, whether results are sorted/paginated, or the return shape.

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 zero waste, leading with the verb and resource before the storage location.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what is listed and where it comes from. Only minor gaps remain (missing-file behavior, ordering), which are low stakes for a simple read.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'keyword' param is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (registered Java/Spring Boot projects) and even names the backing store. It is clearly a read/list operation among many action siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with project_inspect or project_status.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it (enumerate all registered projects), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as project_inspect for single-project detail. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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