Retrieve a Jenkins job's configuration XML. Get job config data to inspect or back up settings; secrets are redacted if you lack Configure permission.
Read serialized job config.xml; secrets may be redacted without Configure permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | 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_job_configDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a meaningful permission-dependent behavioral note: secrets may be redacted without Configure permission. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations and helps the agent anticipate potentially incomplete data. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.
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 compact sentence with the core action and resource first, followed by the permission caveat. Every part is informative, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the core behavior, the serialized config.xml resource, and the important redaction caveat, while the schema handles the parameter structure.
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 offers no additional meaning for the 'job' parameter beyond what the schema's field name implies. The name 'job' is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description should clarify whether a job name or path is expected, especially since the schema allows either a string or an array.
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 names the specific action ('Read') and the resource ('serialized job config.xml'), which clearly identifies this as the read-config operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like jenkins_update_job_config, jenkins_get_job, and jenkins_delete_job.
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 conveys the general use case: retrieving a job's config.xml. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over jenkins_get_job or when not to use it, so the usage context remains implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.