Halt Jenkins builds for a selected job while retaining its history; queued builds require separate cancellation, and the change is reversible.
Disable a job so Jenkins stops building it.
Queued builds are not cancelled; use cancel_queue_item for those. The job and its history are kept, so this is reversible with enable_job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does: queued builds are unaffected, the job and its history survive, and the action is reversible. It omits what happens to currently running builds and any permission requirements, which keeps it short of 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core effect is front-loaded before the caveats and the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a reversible state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: effect, side-effect boundary, reversibility, and an alternative. Only permission/authorization context and the running-build question are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions job_name or its expected format. Given there is exactly one self-evident required parameter, this is a minor gap rather than a damaging one, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (disable) and resource (job) with the effect ('so Jenkins stops building it'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming cancel_queue_item and enable_job. An agent can route between disable_job, enable_job, cancel_queue_item, and delete_job without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the goal is cancelling queued builds ('use cancel_queue_item for those') and notes reversibility via enable_job. It stops short of a direct when-to-use-vs-delete_job statement, but the alternative coverage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.