Show Server Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond that: it never returns token values or the client secret, it reads only local process state, and it does not send a Procore request. This fully covers the safety and privacy-relevant behavior that an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct value: output scope, when to use, what is withheld, no-arg behavior, return format/side-effect, and with which sibling to change values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains compact despite conveying substantial guidance.

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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter, low-complexity read tool. It explains what is returned, what is not returned, how to use it in failure scenarios, and how to change the configuration via sibling procore_set_config. No output schema exists, but the summary of the JSON result is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description confirms 'Takes no arguments.' With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline is high, and the explicit no-arguments statement removes any ambiguity about input requirements.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Reports this server's current state' and names the exact data it returns: OAuth token validity, default company_id, and active project_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like procore_set_config (which changes values) and procore_api_call (which consumes them).

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Check this first when a call fails with 401 or 403, or to confirm which project subsequent calls will target before running a write.' It also names the related tool for mutation ('Pair with procore_set_config') and clarifies that it makes no Procore API request, so there is no confusion about side effects.

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