Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 very concise—just one sentence with the tool name and API path. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the functional description from the technical endpoint. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.

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 doesn't explain what a 'markup stamp' is, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a tool with multiple IDs and pagination parameters, more guidance is needed to understand its role and output.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it merely repeats the path structure. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no value 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 states 'Get Markup Stamp' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what a 'markup stamp' is. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (like 'get_stamps' or 'get_stamps_v2_0') beyond the specific resource path. The description is functional but lacks specificity about the stamp's purpose or format.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_stamps' or 'get_stamps_v2_0', nor does it explain prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage from the path alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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