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', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the PDF URL represents (e.g., temporary, direct download). The API path hints at structure but lacks operational 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 tautological statement and API context. It's front-loaded but under-specified, as the API path adds some value without explaining purpose. While not wasteful, it lacks depth, making it minimally adequate in structure.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the PDF URL is used for, its format, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, the description fails to provide sufficient context 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents 'id', 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. Baseline 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 Observation Item PDF url' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds '[Project Management/Observations] GET /rest/v1.0/observations/items/{id}/pdf', which provides API context but doesn't clarify what the tool actually does beyond the name. It lacks specificity about the resource or outcome, distinguishing it poorly from siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. Without usage guidelines, the agent must infer based on the name alone, which is insufficient.

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