Retrieve artifact download progress by operation ID, including bytes transferred, speed, file paths, and final status.
Get artifact download bytes, speed, paths, and final status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Structured content returned by successful Jenkins tools."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "data": {
+ "title": "Data"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "title": "Ok",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "ok",
+ "data"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"jenkins_get_artifact_download_statusDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Get ... status', implying a read-only polling operation, while annotations set destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction: a tool described as retrieving status is marked as destructive with no explanation of side effects.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler; the key information (resource, data points returned) is front-loaded and immediately usable.
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?
The one-paragraph description omits the crucial relationship to starting an artifact download and fails to address the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks behavioral and usage context needed for safe invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain operation_id beyond the name/title. It can be inferred that operation_id identifies an artifact download operation, but the description adds no detail about where to obtain it or its expected format.
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?
Description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'artifact download status' and enumerates what it returns (bytes, speed, paths, final status). This is distinct from sibling operations like start_artifact_download or cancel_artifact_download.
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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The relationship to jenkins_start_artifact_download is implied at best; there is no mention of prerequisites, polling semantics, or when cancellation should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.