Search Jenkins build console logs for an exact case-sensitive string to pinpoint specific messages or errors in large logs.
Stream and search bounded consoleText for an exact, case-sensitive literal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| build | Yes | ||
| pattern | Yes | ||
| max_matches | No | ||
| max_scan_bytes | 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_search_build_logDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the operation streams, is bounded, and requires an exact case-sensitive literal rather than a regex or substring. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, the resource, the scope, and the matching semantics.
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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description does not explain the meaning of max_matches or max_scan_bytes boundaries, nor does it clarify interaction between 'bounded' scanning and the search result. It is adequate for a simple read-only search, but not fully self-sufficient.
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, but it only implicitly clarifies 'pattern' as an exact case-sensitive literal and 'bounded consoleText' as scan limitations. The roles of job, build, max_matches, and max_scan_bytes are left entirely to inference.
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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('build log') and adds precise matching semantics: exact, case-sensitive literal over bounded consoleText. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like jenkins_get_build_log and jenkins_get_build_log_chunk, which retrieve rather than search.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jenkins_get_build_log or jenkins_get_build_log_chunk. The description implies search use, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or a preferred alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.