Jenkins MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Queue

get_queue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect Jenkins build queues to see what is waiting, for how long, and why; flags stuck items so you can diagnose builds that hang before starting.

Instructions

Build queue: what is waiting, for how long, and why (e.g. 'Waiting for next available executor on label X'). Stuck items are flagged. Useful when builds 'hang' before starting.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: wait reasons with example text, stuck-item flagging, and the hang-diagnosis framing. It does not mention instance scoping or result-size behavior, so not 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by behavior (stuck flagging) and usage trigger. No filler, though the parenthetical example is slightly verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the undocumented 'limit' parameter leaves a real gap in an otherwise simple two-parameter tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only the 'instance' parameter is documented in the schema (50% coverage); 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description mentions neither parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap that the dimension requires when coverage is below 50-80%.

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?

States a specific resource (build queue) and the exact content returned: what is waiting, for how long, and the reason. It is clearly distinguishable from diagnostic siblings like get_build_summary or recent_builds, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger condition — 'useful when builds hang before starting' — which is exactly the scenario an agent would need to recognize. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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