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 a GET request, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description lacks details on what is returned (e.g., plan details, status) or any side effects.

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 parts: a brief title restatement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). There is no wasted text, but it lacks depth, making it efficient yet under-specified.

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 (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral context. For a read operation that might return complex data, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what to expect beyond the basic endpoint.

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 (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, 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 Plan' restates the tool name and adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Action Plans] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plans/{id}'. It indicates a read operation (GET) and the resource path, but is vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving details vs. listing). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan_item' or 'list_action_plans', leaving ambiguity.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project and plan ID), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that might list or show related resources. Usage is implied only by the path parameters, but explicit context is missing.

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