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 the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying it's a read-only action, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format details (though output schema is false). The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool that fetches API metadata.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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's complexity (fetching endpoint details), the description is complete enough for basic use. It lacks output schema, but the description mentions 'response format,' hinting at what's returned. With no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), but it adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'operation_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the source of this parameter ('from discover_endpoints') and providing an example ('e.g., RestV10ProjectsProjectIdRfisGet'), which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's technical definition. This compensates well, though it doesn't detail all possible formats or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get full parameter schema, request body, and response format') and resource ('for a specific endpoint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'procore_discover_endpoints' (which lists endpoints) and 'procore_search_endpoints' (which searches endpoints). It directly addresses what the tool does without redundancy.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use the operationId from discover_endpoints'), providing a clear prerequisite and distinguishing it from alternatives. It directly guides the agent on the necessary input source, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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