MCP Jenkins

Get Plugin Dependency Graph

get_plugin_dependency_graph

Generate a Graphviz dependency graph for a Jenkins plugin by recursively analyzing its dependencies down to leaf nodes, so you can visualize plugin relationships.

Instructions

Get dependency graph for a specific plugin in Graphviz format

Recursively analyzes dependencies down to leaf nodes. Returns nodes and edges that can be used to generate a dependency graph.

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_dependency_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`short_name`	Yes	The short name of the plugin to analyze

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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; it does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the analysis is recursive down to leaf nodes, implying potentially deep/expensive traversal. It omits permission requirements, cycle handling, behavior for an unknown short_name, and whether the call is read-only or costly, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, but the third sentence ("Returns nodes and edges...") partly restates the first and sits in tension with the claim of "Graphviz format" — an agent cannot tell whether it receives DOT text or a node/edge structure. That ambiguity costs more than the sentence saves.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: schema and output schema cover the mechanics. However, it spends a sentence on return values already documented by the output schema while leaving real gaps — traversal depth limits, missing-plugin behavior, and sibling differentiation — unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the plugin is the one being analyzed, which the schema already says; no format, naming convention, or lookup hint (e.g., where short names come from) is provided.

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 and resource ("Get dependency graph for a specific plugin") plus an output format, which is far more than the title alone. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_plugin or get_all_plugins, so an agent must infer that this is the recursive graph variant rather than plain metadata.

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 guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many plugin/build siblings. The only implicit signal is "for a specific plugin," which does not help an agent choose between this and get_plugin or get_plugins_with_problems.

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