Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Java Project Runner MCP

Java Project Runner MCP

by vinsmoke-sanji59
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_status

Query runtime status for one project or all tracked projects to see which services are running and diagnose availability issues.

Instructions

Query runtime status for one project or all tracked projects

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose what runtime status includes, whether it requires auth, or what the return 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter query tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not clarify what 'runtime status' contains or how it differs from sibling inspection tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that projectId is optional: omit it for all tracked projects, provide it for one project. That adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though no format or validation details are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('runtime status') and clarifies scope: one project or all tracked projects. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like project_list or project_inspect.

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?

It gives scope ('one project or all tracked projects') but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_list, project_inspect, or project_logs. With many sibling tools, this leaves selection ambiguous.

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