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 mentions 'GET' in the API path, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (even though 'page' and 'per_page' parameters exist in the schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 two parts: a clear action phrase and an API path for context. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the API path detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous if the tool is meant for high-level use, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on the return type, error conditions, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. For a read operation with multiple IDs and pagination, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even clarifying the relationship between IDs (e.g., hierarchy). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get Activity by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Activity'), but it's vague about what an 'Activity' entails in this context (e.g., scheduling activity, task). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as many siblings are 'get' operations for other resources (e.g., 'get_activity_link_by_id_v2_0'), leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and an API path, but these don't explain usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with similar 'get' tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_activity_link_by_id_v2_0'.

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