Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jenkins MCP Server

Jenkins MCP Server

by TelmanH
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Job Config History

get_job_config_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a job's configuration change history to see who modified it and when, newest first, with timestamps for diffing versions.

Instructions

Who changed a job's configuration and when (Job Config History plugin), newest first: 'timestamp | operation | user'. Use the timestamps with diff_job_config. Changes by SYSTEM usually come from JCasC / JobDSL seed jobs: then the source of truth is Git and UI changes get overwritten.

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_job_config_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobYesJob full name like 'cd/master/my-app' (folders separated by '/'), or a Jenkins job/build URL (instance is then detected from the URL).
limitNo
instanceNoJenkins instance name from list_instances. Empty = default instance.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, and the description adds real context beyond them: ordering guarantee, the record format, the plugin dependency, and the operationally important caveat that JCasC/JobDSL changes are authoritative in Git and UI edits get overwritten. It stops short of saying what happens with no history or a missing plugin.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core question and output shape before the follow-up-tool hint and the caveat. Every sentence carries actionable information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers purpose, ordering, follow-up, and the main operational gotcha. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on missing plugin, empty history, and how 'limit' truncates).

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 coverage is 67%: 'job' and 'instance' are documented in-schema, but 'limit' has only a default of 20 with no explanation of ordering/truncation semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for partial schema coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Who changed a job's configuration and when') and pins the implementation to the Job Config History plugin. The return shape 'timestamp | operation | user' plus 'newest first' makes it immediately distinguishable from get_job_config (current state) and diff_job_config (content diff).

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?

Gives an explicit pairing rule — 'Use the timestamps with diff_job_config' — so the agent knows the follow-up call. It also explains the SYSTEM-user case and the JCasC/JobDSL consequence. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to call it (e.g., 'for current config use get_job_config'), which keeps it off a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools