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' and implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results (suggested by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method and endpoint.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get Project Currency Configuration') and includes the endpoint path. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). It earns its place by providing essential context.

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 (a read operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'currency configuration' entails, the format of returned data, or how pagination works. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema (e.g., 'ID of the company', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents them. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Project Currency Configuration'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Currency Configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_currency_configuration' and 'update_project_currency_configuration' by specifying a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'get_company_currency_configuration' beyond the resource scope.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing company and project IDs), nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'get_company_currency_configuration' or 'list_project_exchange_rates'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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