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. It mentions a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not confirm if it's safe or if it requires specific permissions. It also omits details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), which are critical for a tool with pagination support.

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, consisting of a single sentence that includes the tool name, category, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could be more structured by separating functional intent from technical details, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 pagination and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'template receiver' is, the expected return format, or how pagination works in practice. For a read operation with multiple parameters, 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 descriptions for all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between project_id and id or pagination defaults. However, the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 shows an action plan template receiver, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_action_plan_template_approver' or 'list_action_plan_template_receivers', leaving ambiguity about its unique role. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project or template state, and does not mention sibling tools like 'list_action_plan_template_receivers' for bulk retrieval or 'show_action_plan_template_approver' for related entities. This omission leaves the agent without usage direction.

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