MCP Jenkins

Get Plugin

get_plugin

Retrieves detailed information for a specific Jenkins plugin, including its dependencies when depth is 2 or higher. Use it to inspect plugin metadata and dependency relationships.

Instructions

Get a specific plugin from Jenkins

Contains detailed information about the plugin, including dependencies when depth >= 2.

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": {
      "short_name": "<short_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	The depth of the information to retrieve. Default is 2 (includes dependencies).
`short_name`	Yes	The short name of the plugin

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavior — that depth >= 2 pulls in dependency data — but says nothing about what happens when a plugin is not found, whether errors are raised or empty results returned, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a fragment ("Contains detailed information...") that could be merged, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a no-annotation tool it leaves gaps around failure behavior and how it relates to the many sibling plugin 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including depth defaulting to 2 with dependencies. The description restates the depth/dependency relationship rather than adding new meaning, which matches the baseline 3.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ("Get a specific plugin from Jenkins") and the word "specific" implicitly contrasts it with the listing tools such as get_all_plugins. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by "specific plugin", suggesting it is the right call when a short_name is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to get_all_plugins, get_plugin_dependency_graph, or get_plugins_with_updates.

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