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 the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, or handles errors. The mention of pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema hints at pagination, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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 a single sentence that states the purpose, but it includes redundant information like the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}') which doesn't add value for an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the core action but could be more concise by omitting the endpoint details.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or pagination behavior implied by the schema. For a tool that retrieves a single project with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (company_id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a Single Project'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_projects' by specifying retrieval of a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other single-item retrieval tools (e.g., 'get_a_single_group'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing company_id and project_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple projects), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_projects' for broader queries.

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