List Jenkins nodes and computers visible to the user, including status, offline state, executors, and labels, using a customizable tree filter.
List Jenkins computers/nodes visible to the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree | No | computer[displayName,offline,temporarilyOffline,numExecutors,assignedLabels[name]] |
| 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_list_nodesDictOutput"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, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context that results are filtered by user visibility, but it does not disclose behaviors like default field selection or whether offline nodes are included. The output schema covers return shape, so the added value is modest.
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, tightly worded sentence with no unnecessary content. The action and resource are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough for default invocation and clarifies the visibility filter. The main gap is the undocumented tree parameter, but its schema default makes the tool callable without needing to understand it.
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 the 'tree' parameter or how it affects the response. The parameter's optional nature and default value are only visible in the schema, so the description contributes no additional meaning for the agent.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Jenkins computers/nodes') with an explicit scope ('visible to the user'). This distinguishes it from jenkins_get_node and other list-style siblings by indicating a plural, filtered listing.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jenkins_get_node or other list tools. The verb 'List' implies the use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.