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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'GET' and includes an endpoint path, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions (Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on an API endpoint path without adding explanatory value, and the bracketed text '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' is cryptic. It fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose in a clear, structured way.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Custom Field' is, what data is returned, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) function in a 'single' retrieval context. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 fully documents the four parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between company_id and field_id. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 Single Custom Field' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, making it vague about what exactly is being retrieved. While it includes an API endpoint path, this doesn't explain the tool's purpose in user-friendly terms.

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 any sibling tools (like 'get_all_custom_fields' or 'add_values_to_custom_field') or contextual prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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