Retrieve the console output for a specific Jenkins build by job name and build number, optionally limiting to the last lines. Helps diagnose failures with direct access to build logs.
Console output for a build. Returns the last tail_lines lines by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_name | Yes | ||
| tail_lines | No | ||
| build_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 does reveal the default tail_lines behavior, but it says nothing about output format, error handling, size limits, or the read-only nature of the operation, which would be important for an agent to know.
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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that each carry meaningful information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no wasted wording.
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?
Despite the tool's relative simplicity, the description lacks critical context: it does not state the required parameters, describe the return format, or distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_build_info. With no annotations or output schema, this leaves the agent with significant 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for tail_lines ('Returns the last tail_lines lines by default'), but it does not explain the required job_name and build_number parameters, which are essential for calling the tool correctly.
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 identifies the tool as returning console output for a build, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Console output for a build'). It is distinct from siblings like get_build_info, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 when to use this tool: when console output for a build is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.