jenkins-http-mcp-server

jenkins_whoami

Read-only

Get the current authenticated Jenkins user by querying the whoAmI endpoint. Verify your login session and access level.

Instructions

Return the authenticated Jenkins identity from /whoAmI/api/json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0Sep 6, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"Structured content returned by successful Jenkins tools."

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "data": {
+    "title": "Data"
+  },
+  "ok": {
+    "const": true,
+    "title": "Ok",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "ok",
+  "data"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"jenkins_whoamiDictOutput"New value: +"ToolSuccess"

First observedv0.1.0May 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint detail but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication failure behavior or response shape, though that information would be useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the relevant endpoint without any filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and from where, and there is no ambiguity about invocation requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to specify any parameters, and the schema already confirms there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns the authenticated Jenkins identity, naming both the specific resource and the endpoint it queries. This is precise and unambiguous, and it naturally distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools that deal with jobs, builds, nodes, or plugins.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you need the current authenticated Jenkins identity. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but there is no close sibling tool covering the same function, so the intended usage is straightforward.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server