List Jenkins views visible to the current user. Retrieve view names and URLs directly from the Jenkins server.
List Jenkins views visible to the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree | No | views[name,url,_class] |
| 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_viewsDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, setting a lower bar. The description adds only the visibility scoping ('visible to the user'), which hints at permission-based filtering but does not elaborate on pagination, response shape, or the role of the tree parameter. No additional behavioral detail is provided beyond what annotations already convey.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the object ('Jenkins views'). It contains no filler words, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
Although an output schema exists and the core action is simple, the description omits any explanation of the tree parameter, which is essential for customizing the response. It also provides no context about when to use this tool versus jenkins_get_view. These gaps make the description incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with informed parameter choices.
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?
The only parameter, 'tree', has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no explanation of what the tree parameter controls or what format is expected. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Jenkins views' and adds the scope 'visible to the user'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jenkins_get_view, which retrieves a single view, and other list tools like jenkins_list_jobs.
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. It does not mention jenkins_get_view for viewing details of a single view, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the one-line description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.