mcp-jenkins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in a Jenkins-like context.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., using markdown or consistent casing).

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching branches in a multibranch pipeline), no annotations, and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or performance considerations, which are important in this server context.

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

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

The description adds meaning by specifying that 'fullname' refers to 'the fullname of the multibranch pipeline job', which clarifies beyond the schema's generic string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is minimal compensation, meeting the baseline for adequate but not comprehensive parameter explanation.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all branches for a specific multibranch pipeline job'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_multibranch_jobs' (which likely lists multibranch jobs themselves) by focusing on branches within a specific job, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for listing branches in a multibranch pipeline versus using 'get_job_info' for general job details, or 'get_multibranch_jobs' for broader multibranch job listings, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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