MCP Jenkins

Query Items

query_items

Query Jenkins items by full name, class, color, or folder depth; select returned fields and limit results for compact inspection.

Instructions

Query items from Jenkins, compact

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": "query_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items, 1-1000 (default 200); a final row says how many were dropped
`fields`	No	Fields to return, from fullname, name, kind, class_, url, color (default: fullname, kind, color)
`folder_depth`	No	The maximum depth of folders to traverse. If None, traverses all levels.
`class_pattern`	No	The pattern of the _class
`color_pattern`	No	The pattern of the color
`fullname_pattern`	No	The pattern of the fullname

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and hints at trimmed output with 'compact', but does not explain pattern matching, folder traversal, pagination behavior, or what data is omitted or included.

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?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but 'compact' is unexplained and the brevity leaves out information an agent needs. It is concise at the expense of clarity rather than being efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 explanation is not required. However, with six optional filter parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, the description is too thin to support correct selection and invocation.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ('Query items from Jenkins'), but 'items' is vague and 'compact' is undefined jargon. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_all_items, get_item, or get_item_summary, so an agent cannot confidently choose it over them.

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, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of get_all_items and get_item as siblings makes this omission particularly costly.

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