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 states 'Show All Commitment Change Orders' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains (e.g., list format, error handling). The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Show All Commitment Change Orders') and avoids unnecessary words. However, the second sentence is purely technical (the HTTP path) and does not add explanatory value for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error handling), usage guidelines, and output details. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not address the tool's role in the system, how results are structured, or when to use it, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'view' with enum values explaining extended vs. default). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, 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 All Commitment Change Orders' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('Commitment Change Orders') but lacks a specific verb or scope beyond 'Show All', which is vague. The bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides some context, but the description does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'show_all_commitment_change_order_batches' or 'show_all_prime_change_orders'.

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. For example, it does not clarify if this is for listing all change orders without filtering (as opposed to a filtered search) or how it relates to other commitment-related tools in the sibling list. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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