Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get Stamps' and includes an API endpoint, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). It lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes the API endpoint, which adds technical detail but does not front-load the purpose clearly. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information succinctly, making it less helpful than a more descriptive yet concise statement would be.

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 of a tool with 5 parameters (including pagination and search), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'stamps' are, what the return format is, or any behavioral traits. For a read-like operation in a project management context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for each parameter (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', 'page', 'per_page', 'search_text'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'search_text' is applied or default values for pagination. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and the API endpoint 'GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/stamps', which provides some context but does not specify what 'stamps' are (e.g., digital signatures, annotations, approvals) or what the tool actually retrieves (e.g., a list of stamps, stamp details). It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'get_stamps' (without _v2_0) or 'save_stamp_v2_0'.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'get_stamps' for a different version, 'save_stamp_v2_0' for creating stamps). There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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