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/companies/{company_id}/meeting_templates/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly state it is safe, non-destructive, or has any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 two sentences: one tautological statement and one with API details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (though vague) and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the tautology reduces its effectiveness, but it remains structurally 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 (a read operation with required IDs and pagination) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Meeting Template' is, what data is returned, or any constraints (e.g., permissions, error cases). The API path hints at resource structure but leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full context.

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., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'Meeting Template ID', pagination parameters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.

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 Meeting Template' is a tautology that restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'show_a_bid_within_a_company', 'show_a_crew'). The bracketed '[Project Management/Meetings]' and API path provide some context but do not articulate what the tool actually does beyond its name.

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. With numerous sibling tools (e.g., 'list_meeting_templates', 'show_a_meeting'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate. The agent receives no usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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