MCP Jenkins

Get All Build Artifacts

get_all_build_artifacts

Lists artifacts for a specified Jenkins job build, defaulting to the last build when no build number is given, so you can identify downloadable outputs.

Instructions

List the artifacts of a specific build in Jenkins

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fullname": "<fullname>"
    },
    "name": "get_all_build_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	No	The number of the build, if None, get the last build
`fullname`	Yes	The fullname of the job

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.6.0+microtech.5Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior through the verb 'List'. It says nothing about what happens when the build has no artifacts, whether the build number defaults to the last build, or how results are ordered or paginated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the core contract is covered. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs in a crowded artifact-related sibling set, plus any note on empty results or build resolution.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the important note that a null number means the last build, so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no additional meaning about how fullname or number are resolved.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (artifacts of a build) with the Jenkins context, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_build_artifact and get_build_artifact_url, which an agent would need to choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'of a specific build' only weakly implies that a build/job must already be identified, leaving the agent to infer the choice against sibling artifact tools.

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