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 the tool retrieves a queue item but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; however, every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary information.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: dict'), the description is somewhat complete but lacks context. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, and while the output schema handles return values, the description could better integrate with sibling tools for a more holistic understanding.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it names the parameter ('id_') and indicates it's 'The id of the queue item'. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides some context, but it doesn't explain the ID format, range, or source (e.g., from 'get_all_queue_items'). The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward, but more detail would improve usability.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific item in Jenkins queue'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_queue_items' or 'cancel_queue_item', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_queue_items' or 'cancel_queue_item'. It mentions retrieving 'a specific item' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing to know the queue item ID beforehand, or when this operation is appropriate versus listing all items.

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