Jenkins MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Node

get_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve live status and configuration details for a Jenkins node, including online state, executors, Java version, and environment variables, to diagnose node health and troubleshoot build issues.

Instructions

One node in detail. Live: online/offline (reason), labels, every executor with the build running on it, Java version (if a monitor exposes it), disk/memory/clock. Configuration (config.xml): remote root, mode (any job / matching labels only), launch method (e.g. SSH host), node environment variables (secrets masked) and tool locations. Without Computer/ExtendedRead permission only the live part is shown.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Node name as shown by node_health; a unique part is enough, 'built-in' = the controller
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit for disclosing permission-gated behavior (without Computer/ExtendedRead only the live part is shown) and secret masking in environment variables. It does not say what happens when a node name is unknown, which keeps it off a 5.

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 content is dense but front-loaded, with the two data groups (live vs config.xml) separated cleanly. The telegraphic inventory style is efficient, though slightly list-like rather than prose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: what sections exist, that some fields are permission-gated, and that secrets are masked. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are well documented in the schema, including the 'unique part is enough' and 'built-in' semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific resource and scope ('One node in detail') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: live status, labels, executors, Java version, disk/memory/clock, plus config.xml settings. That enumeration distinguishes it from node_health implicitly, though it never names the sibling directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through 'in detail' versus the health-oriented sibling; the schema's 'name' parameter points at node_health as the source of names, but the description itself states no explicit when-to-use or when-not rule.

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