Jenkins MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Pending Inputs

get_pending_inputs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists pending input steps for a running Jenkins Pipeline build, showing message, ID, buttons, requested inputs, and who may approve. Read-only; use it to identify required human approvals.

Instructions

What a running Pipeline build is waiting for (input steps): message, id, button, requested inputs and who may approve. Read only - approving or aborting stays a human action in the Jenkins UI.

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_pending_inputs"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description earns credit for going further: it explicitly bounds the tool's authority ('approving or aborting stays a human action in the Jenkins UI'), which stops an agent from trying to resolve the input through this tool. It does not mention what happens when no input is pending.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource definition is front-loaded and the read-only boundary closes it, with every clause carrying information.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and it names the returned fields anyway. The only real gap is the caller-side precondition (which build is in scope, what an empty result means), which leaves it just short of complete.

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%, so job/build/instance semantics (folders, permalinks, instance inference from URL) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 precisely what is returned: the pending `input` steps of a running Pipeline build, enumerating the payload (message, id, button, requested inputs, approvers). No sibling tool covers pending input steps, and the phrasing makes that scope obvious without opening the schema.

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 — an agent can infer this is for a build blocked on input, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a build number or that the build must be running), and no named alternative among siblings such as get_pipeline_info or get_queue.

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