jenkins-http-mcp-server

jenkins_enable_job

Destructive

Enable Jenkins jobs by name or list of names to resume scheduled builds. Requires write access to the Jenkins server.

Instructions

Enable a job. Requires JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job`	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_enable_jobDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"

First observedv0.1.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, potentially destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context beyond the annotations by stating the JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1 prerequisite, which is a meaningful environmental requirement. It does not elaborate on downstream effects like the job becoming schedulable, but the annotation burden is partially met.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence states the action, and a second states the prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and the most important operational requirement is included.

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 one-parameter write operation, the description plus annotations cover the basic safety and action requirements. However, the schema's array support is undocumented, and the description does not mention the practical consequence of enabling a job. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'job' parameter. It only says 'a job,' which matches the singular string usage but does not explain that the schema also accepts an array of jobs, nor does it clarify whether the value is a name, path, or ID. This is a meaningful gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Enable a job.' It clearly states the tool's action and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jenkins_disable_job beyond the obvious opposite meaning.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides one key usage condition: it requires JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1, which helps an agent know when the tool is allowed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention that it is the counterpart to jenkins_disable_job.

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

Deploy Server