Java Project Runner MCP

project_restart

Restart a registered Spring Boot + Maven project by stopping any running instance and starting it under one lock, with optional build skip or rebuild controls.

Instructions

Stop (if running) then start under one project lock (same build skip / rebuild options as project_start)

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_restart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	No
`rebuild`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`skipBuild`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two useful traits: it stops only if running and performs both actions under one project lock, mirroring project_start's build options. It does not disclose destructive impact on a running project, permissions, failure/timeout behavior, or what is returned.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core action and atomicity front-loaded. It is efficient, though the phrasing 'under one project lock' is terse enough to be slightly cryptic without further context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and four parameters, the description is too thin. It omits failure behavior, permissions, profile semantics, and what a caller should expect after the restart completes.

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 coverage is 0% for four parameters. The description only implicitly maps skipBuild and rebuild via 'same build skip / rebuild options as project_start'; projectId and profile are left entirely unexplained, and no defaults or semantics are provided for any parameter.

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?

The description states a specific action (stop then start) on a project and adds the key scope detail of doing so under one project lock. It also references project_start for option parity, which helps distinguish it from plain start/stop, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it replaces.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the atomic alternative to manually calling stop then start. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no exclusions, and no discussion of when to prefer project_stop plus project_start separately.

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

Deploy Server