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 implies a read operation via 'GET' and 'Show', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema suggests paginated output, but the description doesn't explain this behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 three key elements: action, category, and API endpoint, all in one sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and path is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be streamlined, though it adds technical context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves a specific resource (bid) with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'bid' entails in this context, the response structure, or how pagination works despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. For a read operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions the API path '/rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/bids/{id}', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context. Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show a Bid Within a Company' with a category tag '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and HTTP method 'GET', which clarifies it's a read operation to retrieve a specific bid. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'show_a_bid_within_a_project', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The verb 'Show' is somewhat vague compared to more precise terms like 'Retrieve' or 'Fetch'.

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 mentions a sibling tool 'show_a_bid_within_a_project' in the list, but the description itself doesn't reference it or explain the distinction (company vs. project context). There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.

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