jenkins-http-mcp-server

jenkins_copy_job

Copy an existing Jenkins top-level job to a new name, preserving its configuration. Requires write and job-config flags.

Instructions

Copy a top-level job. Requires write and job-config flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from_job`	Yes
`new_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0Sep 6, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"Structured content returned by successful Jenkins tools."

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "data": {
+    "title": "Data"
+  },
+  "ok": {
+    "const": true,
+    "title": "Ok",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "ok",
+  "data"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"jenkins_copy_jobDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"

First observedv0.1.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context about required permissions, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the destination job name already exists, whether build history is copied, or other side effects, providing only modest additional clarity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission note is useful without being wordy. Well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter operation, the description states the action and permission requirements, and an output schema is present. However, it omits key edge-case information such as behavior on name conflicts and the exact meaning of 'job-config flags', leaving an agent to guess at failure modes for a mutating call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of from_job or new_name. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation with any additional semantics like path formats, naming rules, or how to reference the source job.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool copies a top-level job, specifying the verb and resource. The qualifier 'top-level' narrows the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jenkins_create_job or jenkins_update_job_config, making it clear but lacking explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is a permission requirement ('Requires write and job-config flags'), which is a precondition rather than a directive on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases or when to prefer copy over create/update. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server