MCP Jenkins

Get Build Test Report

get_build_test_report

Retrieves the complete test report for a specific Jenkins build, listing every test case, including passing tests, so you can inspect full test results.

Instructions

Get the test report of a specific build in Jenkins

The report lists every test case, passing ones included, so it can be very large; use get_build_test_failures to see what failed.

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_test_report"
  }
}

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
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most decision-relevant trait: output can be very large because passing cases are included. It stops short of stating whether there is pagination, truncation, or a size cap, which matters given the volume warning.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the size warning plus alternative-tool routing follow immediately, so the agent gets the key constraint before calling.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and the schema documents both params, so the description only needs to cover scope and cost, both of which it does. The only residual gap is the absence of any statement about whether large reports are paginated or capped.

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 both parameters (fullname and the optional number, defaulting to the last build) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only alludes to "a specific build" via the number parameter and adds no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the test report") scoped to "a specific build in Jenkins", and the second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from get_build_test_failures by noting that all test cases, including passing ones, are returned. An agent can route between the two test-report tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the alternative tool directly (get_build_test_failures) and gives the condition that selects it: the full report can be very large, so use the failures tool to see what failed. That is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling rule rather than an implied one.

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