Java Project Runner MCP

project_update

Patch an existing registered Spring Boot/Maven project by project ID, updating configuration fields and re-validating the full entry before applying changes.

Instructions

Patch an existing registry project (id cannot change). Re-validates the full entry.

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_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`path`	No
`enabled`	No
`jarPath`	No
`jvmArgs`	No
`javaHome`	No
`profiles`	No
`buildGoal`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`skipTests`	No
`defaultProfile`	No
`healthCheckUrl`	No
`stopTimeoutSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Re-validates the full entry" is useful, but it omits permissions, partial-vs-full patch semantics, what happens on validation failure, side effects such as restarts, and response behavior for a 13-field mutation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The immutable-id constraint and re-validation behavior are stated immediately.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It should explain the patch model, validation consequences, and key field semantics.

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% across 13 parameters. The description adds meaning only to projectId ("id cannot change"), leaving name, path, enabled, jarPath, jvmArgs, javaHome, profiles, buildGoal, skipTests, defaultProfile, healthCheckUrl, and stopTimeoutSeconds entirely undocumented.

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 ("Patch") and resource ("existing registry project"), plus two meaningful constraints: projectId cannot change and the full entry is re-validated. It is clearly distinguishable from project_register, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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: patch an existing project rather than register a new one. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over project_register, whether the patch is partial or full, or how to handle the full re-validation.

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

Deploy Server