MCP Jenkins

Get Item Config

get_item_config

Retrieve the configuration for a specific Jenkins item by full name, with passwords, tokens, and secret-like values automatically redacted for safe inspection.

Instructions

Get specific item config from Jenkins

Secret-looking values (encrypted secrets, password/token elements, inline NAME=value assignments for password/token/secret/key variables) are replaced with [REDACTED]. Credential ids are kept.

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_item_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fullname`	Yes	The fullname of the item

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: secret-looking values are replaced with [REDACTED] while credential ids are preserved. That materially changes how an agent should interpret the response. It stops short of stating error behavior (e.g., unknown fullname) or auth requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the redaction note follows as a short, separate paragraph. The parenthetical enumeration of secret patterns is slightly verbose but each item conveys distinct behavior, so little is wasted.

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, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the tool takes one fully-documented string parameter. Purpose plus redaction semantics cover the essentials for a simple read tool; the only real gap is sibling disambiguation among the many get_item* 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% and the single parameter is already documented as "The fullname of the item". The description adds nothing about the accepted format of fullname (whether folder paths or nested job names are valid), so it stays at the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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?

"Get specific item config from Jenkins" states a specific verb (get) and resource (item config), so the agent knows the general operation. However, it never distinguishes this from near-identical siblings such as get_item, get_item_summary, or get_item_parameters, leaving the agent to guess which item-fetch variant returns configuration.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over get_item or get_item_summary, no prerequisites, and no note on whether config access requires elevated Jenkins permissions. The second paragraph covers output behavior, not usage selection, so the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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