Skip to main content
Glama
ajaychinthapalli

Jenkins to GitHub Actions MCP Server

by ajaychinthapalli
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one converts Jenkinsfiles to GitHub Actions workflows, the other analyzes their structure. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern (convert_jenkinsfile, analyze_jenkinsfile), making the naming predictable and consistent.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, but the narrow scope of Jenkins-to-GitHub-Actions conversion justifies a small toolset. It is borderline acceptable but not robust.

    Completeness4/5

    The core operations of analyzing and converting are covered, which addresses the server's primary purpose. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of validation or batch processing, but these are not critical.

  • Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool provides structural information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, validation requirements, or any potential side effects. The description adds some context by listing output categories but lacks deep behavioral detail.

    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?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output scope, earning a high score for conciseness.

    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?

    For a single-parameter analysis tool without an output schema, the description lists the key output categories (stages, steps, environment variables, agent configuration) and the input. It lacks explicit detail on return format or edge cases, but is largely complete for its simple scope, making it more than minimally viable.

    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?

    The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'jenkinsfile' with 100% coverage, including its type and description. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' with resource 'Jenkinsfile' and lists the output components (stages, steps, environment variables, agent configuration). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'convert_jenkinsfile' by focusing on structural analysis rather than transformation.

    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?

    The description implies usage when an agent needs to inspect a Jenkinsfile's structure, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of 'convert_jenkinsfile' or provide any exclusions. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, so the usage context is clear only through implication.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input type (Jenkinsfile content) and output type (equivalent workflow), and scopes to declarative pipeline syntax. However, it does not disclose limitations such as unsupported constructs, error handling, or whether the conversion is lossy, which are important for a conversion tool.

    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?

    The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the input/output relationship in the second sentence, making it concise and easy to parse.

    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?

    For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input, output, and scope. The schema covers parameter details, and the return value is clearly described as the equivalent workflow. No significant information is missing for invocation.

    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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the 'format' parameter's purpose is only implied by the default output being YAML, but the schema already documents it. No additional parameter guidance is provided.

    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?

    The description uses a specific verb ('Convert') and clearly identifies the resource (Jenkinsfile declarative pipeline syntax) and target (GitHub Actions workflow YAML). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'analyze_jenkinsfile' by focusing on transformation rather than analysis.

    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?

    The description provides clear context: use this tool when you have a Jenkinsfile and want a GitHub Actions workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling, so no exclusions are needed.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jenkins-to-github-actions-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jenkins-to-github-actions-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ajaychinthapalli/jenkins-to-github-actions-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server