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 mentions it's a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not clarify if it retrieves signature data, metadata, or a file; whether it requires authentication; or if there are rate limits. It lacks details on output format, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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, but it is not front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence is a tautology, and the second includes an HTTP endpoint and category tag, which may be extraneous. While efficient, it lacks prioritization of key details like purpose or usage, making it less helpful for quick understanding.

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 of a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., signature image, metadata, status), how pagination affects results, or any behavioral traits. For a read operation with pagination and no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'project_id' and 'plan_receiver_id' or how pagination works. Given the high schema coverage, 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 Receiver Signature' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_receivers/{plan_receiver_id}/signature', but these do not clarify the specific verb+resource action beyond what the name implies. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_action_plan_approver_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, context, or exclusions, such as when a signature is available or how it relates to other signature-related tools (e.g., 'create_action_plan_receiver_signature'). Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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