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 states 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence with an API endpoint. While it avoids waste, it lacks essential details that would make it helpful. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete, earning a mediocre score for brevity without substance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool in a complex domain like project management, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 Verification Method' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making the purpose vague. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and API endpoint, it doesn't explain what 'show' entails or what a 'verification method' is.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (like 'list_action_plan_verification_methods' or 'create_action_plan_verification_methods'), leaving 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.