mcp-jenkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns source code as a string, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if build doesn't exist), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. There's no wasted text, and the structure aids readability, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into a single paragraph.

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 (returns a string), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one optional), and moderate complexity, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness for effective tool selection.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'fullname' is for the job and 'build_number' retrieves a specific build or defaults to the last one if null. This clarifies the purpose and usage of parameters, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('pipeline source code of a specific build in Jenkins'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_build_info' or 'get_build_logs', which might also retrieve build-related data but for different aspects.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_build_info' for source code versus general build metadata, or prerequisites like needing a valid job name. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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