MCP Jenkins

Get Build Scripts

get_build_scripts

Retrieve the scripts used in a specific Jenkins build by job full name and optional build number; omit the number to inspect the last build.

Instructions

Get the scripts used in 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_build_scripts"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether permissions are required, what happens when the build is missing, or whether the scripts are returned as a list or combined text.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the input schema is fully documented, so the basic call contract is complete. Still, the description lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral context, which are important given the large set of adjacent build tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both the required fullname and optional number parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scripts used in a specific build in Jenkins'), so the tool's purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling build-inspection tools such as get_build_console_output or get_build_parameters.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when inspecting scripts associated with a particular build, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling build-related tools available, an agent receives no routing help beyond the tool name itself.

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