Read a progressive Jenkins build log chunk and return the next safe cursor to continue retrieving subsequent logs.
Read one progressive log response and return Jenkins' next safe cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| build | Yes | ||
| start | No |
| 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_build_log_chunkDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds valuable behavioral context: this is not a full-log fetch but a single progressive response, and it returns a safe cursor for the next call. This goes beyond what the annotation alone conveys.
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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and result efficiently.
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 description works as a minimal definition but lacks guidance on how to begin a progressive log read, how the returned cursor maps to the `start` parameter, and when to stop. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the pagination workflow could be clearer.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides meaningful cursor semantics ('return Jenkins' next safe cursor') which hints at the `start` parameter, but it does not explicitly define `job`, `build`, or how the cursor connects to `start`.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read one progressive log response and return the next safe cursor. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools `jenkins_get_build_log` and `jenkins_search_build_log` by emphasizing progressive chunked reads with cursor management.
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 phrase 'one progressive log response' implies this tool is for incremental/paginated log reading, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of `jenkins_get_build_log` or `jenkins_search_build_log`, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.