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 layer by ID' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The HTTP method 'GET' in the URL snippet hints at safety, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get layer by ID'). The bracketed context and URL are additional but not verbose. However, the URL could be considered extraneous since it's likely auto-generated, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with 5 parameters (3 required), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on what a 'layer' is in this context, the response structure, error cases, or any behavioral constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and tool name, leaving significant gaps.

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 documented in the schema (company_id, project_id, layer_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool name implying 'layer_id' is key. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 layer by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('layer'), specifying retrieval by identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_layers' (list) and 'create_a_new_layer' (create), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' adds domain clarity but isn't essential for 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_layers' (list all layers) or 'get_layers_for_context' (filtered list), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. There's no context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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