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 group by ID' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., group details). The URL path suggests a REST API call, but this is not elaborated. Without annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 brief purpose statement and a technical URL path. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed context and URL could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is succinct with minimal waste.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (what a 'group' contains), error conditions, or authentication needs. The URL path provides some context but is insufficient for an agent to understand the full operational context. With no output schema, the description should do more to compensate.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, project_id, group_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining the hierarchical relationship (group within project within company) or the optional pagination parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description does not compensate with additional meaning.

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 group by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('group'), but it is vague about what a 'group' entails (e.g., user group, project group) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_groups' or 'get_a_single_group', which appear similar. It includes a bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a URL path, but these add technical detail rather than clarifying purpose.

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_groups' (which might list groups) or 'get_a_single_group' (which seems redundant), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing company_id, project_id). The URL path implies a hierarchical context, but this is not explained in usage terms.

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