mcp-jenkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) and returns a list, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it performs destructive operations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized for quick understanding.

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 (3 optional parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type adequately, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors) and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values beyond the basic list structure. This leaves room for improvement in fully informing the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters (class_pattern, name_pattern, fullname_pattern) by describing them as 'Optional regex pattern to filter by' specific job attributes. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter does and how they are used for filtering.

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 multibranch pipeline jobs from Jenkins'), specifying both scope (all) and type (multibranch pipeline jobs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_jobs' by focusing specifically on multibranch pipeline jobs, and from 'get_multibranch_branches' by targeting jobs rather than branches.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage ('optionally filtered by patterns') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_jobs' or 'search_jobs'. It implies usage for retrieving multibranch pipeline jobs with optional filtering, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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