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 implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, leaving key behaviors undocumented.

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 brief but not optimally structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes an endpoint that may be useful for context but does not add explanatory value for an AI agent. While concise, it lacks informative sentences that earn their place, resulting in a mediocre presentation.

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 (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to effectively use this tool in practice.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies 'project_id' and 'id' are required for resource identification. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 Template Approver' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and a REST endpoint, but lacks a specific verb+resource definition that clearly distinguishes what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view, or display) compared to siblings like 'list_action_plan_template_approvers'. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_action_plan_template_approvers' for listing multiple vs. this for a single instance). Without such information, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation.

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