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. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format ('dict: The test results including pass/fail counts and detailed test case information'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this operation is expensive/slow - important behavioral aspects for a Jenkins API tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be more integrated with the natural language flow. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. It provides adequate parameter documentation (compensating for 0% schema coverage) and states the core purpose clearly. For a read-only tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete, though more behavioral context would improve it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains what 'fullname' represents (job fullname), clarifies that 'build_number' defaults to the last build if None, and enumerates all valid values for 'status_filter' with their meanings. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'test results from a specific build in Jenkins', specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like get_build_info or get_build_logs by focusing specifically on test results rather than general build information or logs.

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_build_info (which might include test results) or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to similar tools in the Jenkins context.

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