jenkins_admin_request

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: gate flags, that non-read methods mutate or delete state and are NOT gated by MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE, that session/CSRF headers are withheld from responses, that raw 3xx responses are passed through unlike typed tools, and the MCP_MAX_REQUEST_BYTES limit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the escape-hatch framing, then the gating and safety notes. Dense and mostly economical, though the run of environment-variable clauses makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 high-risk arbitrary-request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers gating, mutation risk, header stripping, redirect behavior, and size limits. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and interpret the non-standard response handling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that path is Jenkins-relative and absolute with the example '/api/json', and that the encoded body must fit MCP_MAX_REQUEST_BYTES. Method semantics (allowed HTTP verbs) are only implied rather than spelled out, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 and resource: 'Send an arbitrary authenticated request to a Jenkins path.' It also positions itself against siblings by calling itself 'a powerful escape hatch for endpoints no other tool covers,' so an agent can distinguish it from the typed mutation tools 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 defines when to use it ('endpoints no other tool covers') and when it will not work: disabled by default, needs MCP_ALLOW_ADMIN_REQUEST, MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS applies to job URLs, and the Groovy console needs MCP_ALLOW_SCRIPT_CONSOLE. It also warns to confirm method/path/body before non-read calls.

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