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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/financials/markups/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves behavioral traits inadequately disclosed for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of a single sentence followed by technical details (endpoint). It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the endpoint might be slightly redundant if the agent already has structured API data, but it's still efficient.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or error cases. For a retrieval tool with multiple inputs and no output schema, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the Markup'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents inputs.

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 states the action ('Retrieve details') and resource ('for the Markup'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools (e.g., 'retrieve_a_list_of_markups' or 'show_a_markup'), missing specificity for a higher score.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing specific IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like list operations, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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