mcp-jenkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Get all jobs') and return type, but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or how it handles large datasets (e.g., pagination). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return type information. Both sentences are essential, with zero wasted words, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: list[dict]'), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return type, but lacks context on behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which is a gap for a tool in a Jenkins environment with potential complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for this scenario is 4, as it avoids redundancy while maintaining clarity about the tool's parameterless nature.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all jobs from Jenkins'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_info' (single job) and 'search_jobs' (filtered search), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_multibranch_jobs' which might overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_jobs' (for filtered results) and 'get_job_info' (for details on a specific job), the description lacks explicit or implicit direction on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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