Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show A Signature' and includes an HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: what a 'signature' entails (e.g., metadata, signer details, timestamp), whether authentication or permissions are required, pagination handling (since 'page' and 'per_page' parameters exist), or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with parameters and no annotation support.

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 fragment ('Show A Signature.') followed by a category and HTTP path. While not verbose, it lacks complete sentences and fails to front-load essential information. The structure is minimal but does not effectively communicate purpose or usage, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'signature' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the resource and expected behavior. The current description leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., 'id' is the signature ID within the company's timesheets) or usage of pagination parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Signature. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/signatures/{id}' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Show A Signature') without specifying what 'signature' means in this context (e.g., a digital signature on a timesheet). The bracketed category and HTTP path add some context but do not clearly articulate the action or resource. It does not distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_a_signature_project'), making it a tautology with minor additions.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., needing a specific company and signature ID), or sibling tools (e.g., 'show_a_signature_project' for project-level signatures). Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation.

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