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' and pagination parameters, implying a read-only, list-like operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the signature data includes (e.g., image, metadata). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 stating the purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., signature details, file URL), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex context (project management), more information is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (project_id, plan_approver_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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 states the action ('Show') and resource ('Action Plan Approver Signature'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_action_plan_item_assignee_signature') or specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata, downloading a file). It is clear but lacks specificity for sibling distinction.

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., after approval), or related tools (e.g., 'create_action_plan_approver_signature'). Usage is implied only by the name and category, with no explicit instructions.

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