Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get a Single Group' with an API endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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?

The description is concise with 'Get a Single Group' and includes the API endpoint in brackets, which is efficient. However, the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Group' is, the expected output, or any error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks crucial context for proper use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters (company_id, group_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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?

The description 'Get a Single Group' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Group'), but it's vague about what 'Group' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_groups' (list) or 'get_group_by_id', though the name 'get_a_single_group' implies retrieval of a specific group. It's adequate but lacks specificity about the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_groups' (list all groups) and 'get_group_by_id' (likely similar), but no explicit comparison or context is given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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