mcp-jenkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'A list of all running builds' but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, what 'running' means (actively executing vs. queued), or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic return statement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second clarifies the return type. No wasted words, though the 'Returns:' label is slightly redundant with the output schema. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), no parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and return type, but for a tool with siblings and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about when to use it and behavioral constraints. Adequate but with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than non-existent parameters.

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: 'Get all running builds from Jenkins' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('running builds') with source ('from Jenkins'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_all_jobs' or 'get_build_info', but the focus on 'running' builds provides some implicit distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_all_jobs' (which might include non-running builds) or 'get_build_info' (which gets details about a specific build). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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