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 only states the basic operation and return type, missing critical behavioral details like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'nodes' represent in Jenkins context (agents, controllers, etc.). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return value. Both sentences earn their place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. It could be slightly more structured by integrating the return information into the main sentence, but it's efficient overall.

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 an output schema (which should document the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations and a read operation that likely has authentication requirements and behavioral constraints, the description should provide more context about what 'nodes' are and any usage considerations. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description correctly doesn't waste space on parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters with full coverage is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 nodes from Jenkins', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_node_config' (single node config) and 'get_all_jobs' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'get_all_nodes' versus 'get_node_config' (for single node details) or other node-related operations. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name itself.

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