Jenkins MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Build Summary

get_build_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarizes a Jenkins build into a compact report covering result, duration, commits, failed stages, test counts, root-cause errors, and downstream builds for quick build diagnostics.

Instructions

START HERE for any build question. Compact summary of one build: result, duration, trigger, parameters, agent node, commits, culprits (failed builds), downstream builds started by the build step (with their result), pending input steps (running builds), stages (with failed stage and its error), test counts, log size, known issues from the team knowledge base, likely root-cause error lines with line numbers, and the last meaningful log lines. Typical size: 1-3k tokens even for 30k+ line logs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job": "<job>"
    },
    "name": "get_build_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job`	Yes	Job full name like 'cd/master/my-app' (folders separated by '/'), or a Jenkins job/build URL (instance is then detected from the URL).
`build`	No	Build number or permalink: lastBuild, lastFailedBuild, lastSuccessfulBuild, lastCompletedBuild, lastUnsuccessfulBuild. Empty = build from the URL, else lastBuild.
`instance`	No	Jenkins instance name from list_instances. Empty = default instance.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the burden is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: the compact output envelope (~1-3k tokens even for 30k+ line logs) and the fact that only "last meaningful log lines" are included. It does not cover edge cases such as a still-running or non-existent build, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The directive is front-loaded and the enumerated field list is dense but each item conveys a distinct capability rather than filler. It is longer than strictly necessary for a single tool but earns most of its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and annotations cover the safety profile; the params are fully documented. What remains unaddressed is failure behavior (unknown job/build, in-progress builds), which would matter for an openWorld tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with job, build (including permalink enum-like values), and instance all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback details beyond saying the tool summarizes "one build." Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a scope directive ("START HERE for any build question") and then enumerates exactly what the summary returns: result, duration, trigger, commits, culprits, downstream builds, pending inputs, stages, tests, log errors. This is a specific verb+resource with contents spelled out, clearly distinguishing it from narrower siblings like get_log_lines, get_test_failures, and compare_builds.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"START HERE for any build question" gives clear entry-point guidance that positions it ahead of the drill-down siblings, and the size note explains why it is the cheap first call. It does not explicitly name when to skip it in favor of a sibling (e.g., full log retrieval), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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