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' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description is minimal and lacks essential 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 parts: a brief title-like phrase and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint detail might be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it is structured without waste.

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 (5 parameters including pagination) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination usage, or error conditions. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the endpoint path with placeholders like {project_id} and {id}, but this is redundant with the schema's property descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Section' with a category tag [Project Management/Action Plans], which clarifies the domain. However, it lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan' or 'show_action_plan_item', making it vague in comparison.

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 includes an HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, but this is technical implementation detail rather than usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios for selection.

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