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 states 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema suggests paginated results, but the description does not explain this behavior, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 tautological statement and an endpoint reference. However, it is not well-structured or front-loaded with useful information; the endpoint detail is appended without clear integration. While brief, it lacks efficiency as it fails to convey essential purpose or usage, making it minimally adequate but not effective.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'context' is, the return format, or how pagination works. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical behavioral and output information. The description should compensate for these gaps but does not, leaving significant uncertainty for correct tool invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', 'context_id', 'page', 'per_page'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter relationships or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without help from the description.

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 context by ID' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a GET endpoint, which hints at the domain and HTTP method, but does not specify what 'context' means (e.g., a document context, project context) or what resource is being retrieved. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_contexts' or 'get_or_create_context_with_hierarchy'.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_contexts' (which might list contexts) or 'get_or_create_context_with_hierarchy', leaving the agent with no indication of when this specific ID-based retrieval is appropriate. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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