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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. While the API path hints at a RESTful read, the description lacks essential behavioral details like pagination handling (implied by page/per_page parameters) or authentication requirements.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and an API path. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose. The structure is minimal but not effectively informative, as it does not earn its place with valuable content beyond what's inferable from the name and schema.

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 of a retrieval tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Cost Item' is, the return format, or how pagination works. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks context on behavioral traits and response structure, making this inadequate for 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 parameters (item_id, company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining pagination behavior or item_id format. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 Cost Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_cost_item_v2_0' without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_cost_items_v2_0' or 'create_cost_item_v2_0'. The bracketed '[Preconstruction/Cost Catalog]' and API path provide some context but do not define the tool's purpose effectively.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_cost_items_v2_0' (for listing multiple items) or 'create_cost_item_v2_0' (for creating items), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieval. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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