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 operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results (suggested by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or potential error conditions. The API path hint ('Construction Financials/Payments') adds minimal context but lacks operational details.

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 sentences: a functional statement and an API path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API path is redundant for agent understanding and could be omitted for better clarity, 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value (e.g., document metadata or content), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool with multiple required IDs, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the compliance document'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately documents all parameters. The description does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., hierarchy of IDs) or optional pagination usage.

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 requisition compliance document', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_requisition_compliance_documents_v2_0'), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves a single document vs. a list. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but does not clarify functional uniqueness.

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, such as needing specific IDs, or contrast it with sibling list tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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