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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Show A Signature' with a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'show' returns (e.g., signature metadata, image data). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 no wasted words, combining a brief purpose statement, category tag, and endpoint. However, it's front-loaded with a tautological phrase ('Show A Signature'), reducing clarity. The endpoint detail is useful but could be better integrated. Overall, it's efficiently structured but under-specified in meaning.

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 with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'signature' is in this context (e.g., for time-and-material entries), what data is returned, or behavioral traits. The endpoint hints at scope but leaves gaps for safe and correct usage, especially compared to sibling tools.

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., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Signature ID', pagination details). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., signature belongs to a time-and-material entry) or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 Signature' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource is being shown (a signature for what?), what 'show' entails (retrieve details? display?), or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_a_signature_company'. The category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entries/signatures/{id}' provide some technical context, but the core description lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project or signature ID), differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_signature_company' (which likely shows company-level signatures), or indicate typical use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the endpoint structure, which is insufficient.

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