Java Project Runner MCP

project_unregister

Removes a registered project from the registry only when its runtime status is not running, starting, stopping, or unknown, preventing unsafe cleanup.

Instructions

Remove a project from the registry. Refuses if runtime status is running/starting/stopping/unknown.

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_unregister"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a guard condition (refusal on active/unknown runtime state), but says nothing about the destructive footprint: whether registry removal deletes project files or config, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the failure precondition immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the guard but leaves the outcome undefined — an agent cannot tell what is destroyed or what is returned on success. Adequate to avoid a wrong call, insufficient to predict consequences.

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 single parameter 'projectId' is undocumented as to format, source, or whether it accepts a name versus an opaque ID. The description says only 'a project' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Remove a project from the registry'), which clearly separates it from lifecycle siblings like project_stop or project_force_stop that act on runtime rather than the registry. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, but the resource scope does the disambiguating work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives an explicit when-not condition: the call refuses if runtime status is running/starting/stopping/unknown, which tells an agent it must stop the project first. It does not name alternatives such as project_force_stop or project_reclaim, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server