Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) and includes an API path, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is paginated (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), what authentication is required, rate limits, or the format/structure of returned data. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological 'Get Stamps', followed by a bracketed category and API endpoint. While concise, it wastes space on redundant information (the name) instead of clarifying purpose or usage. The single sentence format is acceptable but lacks impactful content.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stamps' are, how results are returned, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with pagination and project/company context, more context is needed—especially without annotations or output schema to fill gaps. The description leaves too much undefined for effective agent 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 (e.g., 'Page number for pagination', 'Items per page (max 100)'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between 'company_id' and 'project_id' or provide examples. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Stamps. [Project Management/Document Markup] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/stamps' restates the tool name ('Get Stamps') without clarifying what 'stamps' are in this context. It adds a category tag and API endpoint, but the purpose remains vague—it doesn't specify whether this retrieves approval stamps, digital signatures, or other markup elements, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_stamps_v2_0' or 'get_markup_stamp'.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_stamps_v2_0', 'get_markup_stamp', 'save_stamp'). An agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over others without additional information.

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