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 ('Show') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated data (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied action.

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 ('Show a Commitment Contract.'). However, the inclusion of the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/commitments/{id}') is redundant for an AI agent and could be considered clutter, though it does not severely impact conciseness.

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 (a read operation with 4 parameters, 2 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of pagination parameters, the expected return format, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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', 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'Page number for pagination'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Show a Commitment Contract. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/commitments/{id}' restates the tool name ('show_a_commitment_contract') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (Commitment Contract) and includes an API endpoint, but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not distinguish it from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_commitment_contract_summary_v2_0' or 'show_commitment_contract_v2_0'). This is borderline tautological with some added detail.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (like other 'show' or 'list' commitment tools), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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