Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'Show', but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 but under-specified. It includes the tool name, a category, and an API endpoint in a single sentence, which is efficient but lacks necessary explanatory content. While not verbose, it fails to provide adequate guidance, making it less helpful despite its 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 the tool's complexity (retrieving a specific assignee with pagination options) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., assignee details), how pagination works, or error conditions. The API endpoint hints at structure but does not suffice for agent understanding.

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 four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Item Assignee' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_item_assignees/{id}', which hints at a retrieval operation but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving details of an assignee for an action plan item). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_action_plan_item_assignees' or 'show_action_plan_item_assignee_signature'.

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_id and assignee ID), exclusions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes many similar 'show' and 'list' tools, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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