Skip to main content
Glama
xhuaustc

Jenkins MCP Tool

validate_jenkins_config

Check Jenkins configuration files for errors and ensure proper setup before deployment to prevent CI/CD pipeline failures.

Instructions

Validate the integrity of Jenkins configuration.

Returns:
    Validation result, including error list and status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function implementing the 'validate_jenkins_config' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator. Validates Jenkins server configurations by checking required fields and scenario configurations via ScenarioManager, collecting errors and returning a validation result dictionary.
    @mcp.tool()
    def validate_jenkins_config() -> dict:
        """Validate the integrity of Jenkins configuration.
    
        Returns:
            Validation result, including error list and status
        """
        errors = []
    
        # Validate server config
        try:
            servers = get_jenkins_servers()
            if not servers:
                errors.append("No Jenkins servers configured")
            else:
                for server in servers:
                    required_fields = ["name", "uri", "user", "token"]
                    for field in required_fields:
                        if field not in server or not server[field]:
                            errors.append(
                                f"Server '{server.get('name', 'unknown')}' missing field: {field}"
                            )
        except Exception as e:
            errors.append(f"Failed to load server configuration: {e}")
    
        # Validate scenario config
        scenario_errors = ScenarioManager.validate_scenario_config()
        errors.extend(scenario_errors)
    
        return {"valid": len(errors) == 0, "errors": errors, "error_count": len(errors)}
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Validation result, including error list and status'), which adds some context about output. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or rate limits—critical for a validation tool in a Jenkins context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and the return value in the second. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns more clearly). Overall, it's efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (validation operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and return value, but for a Jenkins configuration tool, it could benefit from more context (e.g., what 'integrity' entails, example use cases). Without an output schema, the return description is helpful but basic.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies validation occurs on the overall Jenkins configuration without specifying inputs, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate the integrity of Jenkins configuration.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('Jenkins configuration'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_names' or 'search_jobs', which serve different purposes but are related to Jenkins operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after configuration changes), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'trigger_build' or 'create_or_update_job_from_jenkinsfile'. Without this context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xhuaustc/jenkins-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server