Fetch a build's details by build number or permalink such as lastBuild. Access build information directly from Jenkins without needing plugins or admin access.
Get a build by number or Jenkins permalink such as lastBuild.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| tree | No | ||
| build | 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_buildDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them (no contradiction). It adds mild value by disclosing that permalinks like lastBuild resolve to builds, but it doesn't describe error behavior or what happens with an invalid build reference; the output schema covers return shape.
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?
A single sentence with no filler — verb, resource, and addressing modes are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation path (job plus build identification). However, with 0% schema description coverage and a large sibling family, it leaves the tree parameter's semantics and the job parameter's accepted shapes uncompensated, and gives no routing hints among the many build-related getters.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the build parameter's dual nature (integer number or permalink string), which maps to the anyOf in the schema, but it says nothing about the job parameter's string-or-array form or the tree filter parameter.
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 uses a specific verb (get) and a concrete resource (a Jenkins build), and clarifies the addressing mode (by number or permalink like lastBuild). This distinguishes it from siblings such as jenkins_get_build_log or jenkins_list_builds, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 implies the usage scenario — fetch a specific build when you already have a number or permalink — but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. It doesn't help an agent decide between this and the build-log, test-report, or artifacts tools beyond the resource name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.