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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', implying administrative permissions, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get Operation Details'). The additional API endpoint information is relevant but could be considered slightly extraneous. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples.

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 (fetching details for async operations) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'operation details' include, the format of the response, or error conditions. Without this context, the agent may struggle to use the tool effectively, especially for a potentially nuanced async operation tool.

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 descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra description value.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get Operation Details', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_operations_v2_0' or other get_* tools), and the inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but not semantic clarity. It adequately conveys the action but lacks specificity about what 'operation details' entail.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', which hints at required permissions, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, use cases, or contrast with sibling tools like 'list_operations_v2_0'. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks contextual usage direction.

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