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', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the crew ID is invalid. The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a restated name, a category label ('[Core/Directory]'), and an API endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide meaningful context, making it inefficient for understanding the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., crew details), error conditions, or how pagination works. The API endpoint hints at the resource but does not compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 descriptions for parameters like 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it implies pagination via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, though this is already covered in the schema. 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 'Show A Crew. [Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/crews/{id}' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Show A Crew') and includes an API endpoint, but does not clearly specify the action (e.g., retrieve details of a specific crew) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_all_project_crews' or 'show_a_crew' (if duplicates exist). The purpose is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'list_all_project_crews' and 'list_all_project_crew_ids', which likely list multiple crews, but the description does not mention these or specify that this tool is for retrieving a single crew by ID. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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