Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response includes (e.g., JSON structure). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's name and API endpoint in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). It efficiently conveys the core information without redundancy.

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 (a read operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how pagination works with a single item retrieval. For a tool without annotations or output schema, more context 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 already documents all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining pagination context or relationships between parameters, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose as 'Show Action Plan Item' and includes the API endpoint, which indicates it retrieves a specific action plan item. However, it's vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan' or 'list_action_plan_items', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and item ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_action_plan_items' for multiple items or 'show_action_plan' for plan-level details.

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