MCP Jenkins

Get Plugins With Backup

get_plugins_with_backup

Find Jenkins plugins with a backup version to determine which can be downgraded or rolled back.

Instructions

Get plugins that can be downgraded

Returns plugins that have a backupVersion and can be rolled back.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_plugins_with_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	The depth of the information to retrieve. Default is 0.

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

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 burden; it does disclose the inclusion criterion (presence of backupVersion, rollback-ability) beyond the title. It does not state that this is a read-only enumeration, mention pagination or result limits, or note any 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, front-loaded lines with no filler. The second line largely restates the first ('downgraded' vs 'rolled back'), costing a little redundancy but nothing significant.

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 values need not be explained, and with one optional parameter and no annotations the description covers the essentials. The only gap is the unexplained effect of 'depth' on results, which the schema handles only partially.

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 single 'depth' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what depth controls or how it changes the response, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('plugins') scoped by a filter ('that have a backupVersion and can be rolled back'), which clearly separates it from get_all_plugins, get_plugins_with_updates, and get_plugins_with_problems. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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 filter condition implies when this tool is appropriate (you want downgradable plugins), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not language and no pointer to the sibling listing tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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