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 describes a read-only operation ('Show') and lists output content, implying safe, non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits, permissions needed). The description adds value but is not comprehensive for behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Show current MCP server configuration') and efficiently lists key details. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it specifies the tool's purpose and output content. However, it does not detail the format or structure of the returned configuration data, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results. For a simple read-only tool, this is mostly adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on output semantics. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, as the description adds context about what is returned without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current MCP server configuration'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on configuration display rather than data manipulation or retrieval of specific entities. It explicitly lists key components included: auth status, default company ID, and runtime settings.

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 implies usage context by specifying what configuration details are shown (e.g., auth status, runtime settings), which helps an agent understand when to use it—likely for diagnostics or setup verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, though siblings are mostly data operations, making differentiation clear.

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