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 the action ('trigger a scan') and return value, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's asynchronous/synchronous, potential rate limits, what happens if the pipeline doesn't exist, or if it affects existing builds. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation). However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error conditions. The current description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'fullname' by explaining it's 'The fullname of the multibranch pipeline job'. This clarifies what the parameter represents beyond just being a string. With only one parameter and this clarification, the description adequately compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific action ('trigger a scan') and resource ('multibranch pipeline') with the explicit purpose 'to discover new branches'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_multibranch_branches' (which retrieves existing branches) and 'get_multibranch_jobs' (which lists jobs) by focusing on the discovery/scanning function.

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 implies usage context (when new branches need discovery), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It suggests this tool is for initiating scans rather than retrieving branch information, which provides some guidance relative to sibling tools like 'get_multibranch_branches'.

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