Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@znmin/jenkins-mcp-server

@znmin/jenkins-mcp-server

by znmin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_build_scripts

Read-only

Retrieve scripts used in a specific Jenkins build by job full name and optional build number to inspect Pipeline code.

Instructions

Get scripts used in a specific build.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_build_scripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberNo
fullnameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only (readOnlyHint: true), which is consistent with the description. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond that (e.g., does it return file paths? contents?). With annotations present, the description provides minimal added value.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, but it might be slightly too terse.

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 no output schema and minimal input schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't indicate the return format (e.g., list of script names, objects) or any limitations. The tool appears simple but lacks necessary completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only says 'Get scripts used in a specific build' without clarifying what 'fullname' or 'number' represent. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description fails to add meaningful semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'scripts used in a specific build', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build or get_build_console_chunk. However, it could be more specific about what scripts are (e.g., shell commands?).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_build, get_build_console_chunk). The description simply states the function without context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools