Java Project Runner MCP

project_reclaim

Re-verifies a persisted PID against the managed java -jar fingerprint and marks the project as running when they match, confirming process state after restarts or reconnects.

Instructions

Re-verify a persisted PID against the managed java -jar fingerprint and mark running if matched

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_reclaim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core side effect ('mark running if matched'), which is valuable, but says nothing about the mismatch path (what happens when the fingerprint doesn't match — error, no-op, cleanup?), permissions, or idempotency for what is clearly a state-mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the action and the conditional side effect front-loaded; no filler. It is tight to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover the no-match outcome and what state the caller ends up in. Neither is addressed, and the sole parameter is unexplained, so an agent cannot call this confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the single required parameter, projectId. It gives no hint whether this is an opaque project ID versus a name or path, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific action (re-verify a persisted PID) and its mechanism (match against the managed java -jar fingerprint), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the terminology is dense and it never distinguishes the tool from close siblings such as project_status, project_start, or project_register, leaving the agent to infer what 'reclaim' means operationally.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus project_status (read state) or project_start (launch) — the two obvious alternatives in a large sibling set. No prerequisites, exclusions, or recovery-context cues are given, so the agent must guess the scenario this exists for.

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

Deploy Server