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. The description only states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm this or describe any other behavioral traits (like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'signature' actually represents). The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method hint.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with an endpoint reference. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary explanatory content. The structure is straightforward but minimal.

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 (retrieving signatures for action plan item assignees), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'signature' entails in this context (e.g., digital signature metadata, approval status, etc.), the expected return format, or any error conditions. The description leaves too many open questions for a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't explain relationships between project_id and plan_item_assignee_id, or how pagination works with signatures). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Signature' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the project management domain. While it includes a category hint '[Project Management/Action Plans]', this is insufficient for understanding the tool's specific function.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or relationship to other tools (like 'show_action_plan_item_assignee' or signature-related tools). The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond what can be inferred from the name alone.

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