@znmin/jenkins-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_build_console_chunk

Read-only

Read incremental Jenkins build console output from a specific byte offset to fetch only new log data and avoid re-reading the full console.

Instructions

Read incremental console output from a specific byte offset.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fullname": "<fullname>",
      "start": "<start>"
    },
    "name": "get_build_console_chunk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`start`	Yes
`number`	No
`fullname`	Yes
`max_bytes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds 'incremental' and 'from a specific byte offset' beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, but does not elaborate on behavior such as what happens when the offset is beyond the output length or how number/max_bytes affect the response. The annotation already marks it as read-only, so the added context is modest.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise, but could include more detail without significant bloat. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, behavior of optional parameters, or constraints like what 'incremental' means in practice. Sibling tools are not differentiated.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only implicitly hints at 'start' via 'byte offset.' It does not explain 'fullname,' 'number,' or 'max_bytes,' leaving the agent with minimal understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Read incremental console output from a specific byte offset,' specifying the action (read), resource (incremental console output), and the unique aspect (byte offset). It distinguishes from siblings like get_build_console_tail (which likely provides tail) and search_build_console (which searches for patterns).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_build_console_tail or search_build_console. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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