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 only indicates a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), suggesting list-like behavior, but does not clarify if this tool retrieves a single action or a paginated list of actions. It omits critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent.

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 but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes an HTTP endpoint that may not be necessary for an AI agent. While concise, it wastes space on tautological elements instead of providing actionable information. It could be more effectively structured by leading with the tool's purpose.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., action details), how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or the relationship between 'incident_id' and 'id'. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by detailing behavioral aspects and return values, which it does not.

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 all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies 'project_id', 'incident_id', and 'id' are required for context, but this is redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 Action. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Action') and adds only a vague category label and HTTP endpoint. It does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific action within an incident) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan' or 'list_actions'. The purpose is implied but not explicitly articulated.

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 (e.g., needing a specific project and incident context), when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'list_actions' for browsing versus this tool for detailed retrieval. Usage is entirely inferred from the endpoint structure.

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