MCP Jenkins

Get Running Builds

get_running_builds

Retrieve all currently running builds from a Jenkins instance to monitor active jobs, confirm build progress, and identify stuck or concurrent runs.

Instructions

Get all running builds from Jenkins

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_running_builds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it adds nothing about read-only safety, permissions, scope across nodes/jobs, or how in-progress builds appear. 'Get' implies a read, but the agent gets no confirmation of side effects or rate/loading characteristics on a potentially busy Jenkins instance.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('running') front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and with no parameters the callable surface is simple. Still, the absence of annotations and of any differentiation from sibling listing tools leaves a meaningful gap for an agent choosing among ~30 getters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 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) and resource (running builds) with the source system named as Jenkins, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_builds or get_jobs_status, which could plausibly return overlapping information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_builds or get_jobs_status, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the running-only subset.

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