Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Java Project Runner MCP

Java Project Runner MCP

by vinsmoke-sanji59
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_logs

Tail stdout, stderr, or combined logs for a registered Spring Boot project, capped at 200 lines, to diagnose runtime behavior.

Instructions

Tail project logs (stdout/stderr/both), max 200 lines

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_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
streamNo
projectIdYes
tailLinesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves the most important trait ambiguous: whether 'tail' is a one-shot snapshot of the last N lines or a blocking follow/stream, and whether it can be paginated or continued. It does at least disclose the 200-line cap, but adds nothing on permissions, blocking behavior, or failure modes.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every token carries content.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return shape (raw log text vs structured lines), the default tail length, and whether the call blocks. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity about how an agent should invoke and consume the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the stream values (stdout/stderr/both) and the 200-line maximum on tailLines, but projectId is left entirely undocumented and no defaults are given for stream or tailLines. Partial compensation for a 3-parameter tool.

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 (tail project logs) plus the stream variants it covers, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like project_status or project_inspect, which also concern a project's state.

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 statement of when to use this versus project_status or project_inspect, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied guidance is the implicit debugging/observability context.

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