Update a Jenkins build's display name and description to improve build identification and record keeping.
Update build display name and/or description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobFullName | Yes | Full name of the Jenkins job | |
| buildNumber | No | Build number (omit for last build) | |
| displayName | No | New display name for the build | |
| description | No | New description for the build |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations confirm write operation (readOnlyHint: false). Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 5 words, directly conveying the tool's action with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with clear schema and annotations, the description is adequate. No output schema needed for such a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description merely summarizes two optional params without adding new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Update build display name and/or description' using specific verb and resource, distinguishing from read-only sibling tools like getBuild and getBuildLog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. While implied from context, guidance on alternatives (e.g., when to use triggerBuild) is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.