Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema is not explained in the description, leaving the agent unaware of how results are returned. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence with endpoint details) and front-loaded with the action ('Get Cost Items'). However, it includes redundant information (the tool name is 'get_cost_items_v2_0') and the endpoint path, which may not add value for an AI agent. It lacks structure for clarity, such as separating purpose from technical 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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Cost Items' are, the expected output format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The endpoint path hints at a REST API, but without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for proper invocation and result handling.

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 each parameter documented (e.g., 'catalog_id' as 'Catalog Id', 'company_id' as 'Unique company identifier'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 when no param info is in the description, which applies here.

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 Items. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs/{catalog_id}/items' restates the tool name ('Get Cost Items') and adds minimal context (domain: Preconstruction/Cost Catalog, HTTP method, and endpoint path). It lacks a specific verb beyond 'Get' and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_cost_items' or 'search_cost_items' that might exist in the sibling list. The purpose is vague about what 'Cost Items' are and the scope of retrieval.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid catalog_id), filtering capabilities (like the 'type' or 'cost_item_unit' parameters), or pagination considerations. With many sibling tools present (e.g., 'list_cost_items', 'search_cost_items' if they existed), the absence of usage differentiation is a significant gap.

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