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 the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The inclusion of the endpoint path is slightly technical but not wasteful. It could be more structured by separating usage notes, but it's appropriately sized.

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, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Show' entails (e.g., returns bid details), potential authentication needs, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) apply to a single bid. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format constraints or relationships. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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 action ('Show') and resource ('a Bid within a Project'), providing a specific verb and object. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'show_a_bid_within_a_company' by specifying the project context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bid-related tools like 'list_bids_within_a_project' or 'show_bids_within_a_bid_package' beyond the singular focus.

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 a specific bid ID), comparison to list tools, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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