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 doesn't explicitly state this or discuss any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (even though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 inefficiently structured. It includes the HTTP endpoint which is redundant with the tool's implementation details rather than focusing on user-facing information. The '[Project Management/Inspections]' context is useful but could be better integrated. While concise, it doesn't front-load the most important information about the tool's purpose.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'alternative response set' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works. For a retrieval tool with specific IDs and pagination parameters, more context is needed to understand the tool's complete behavior and output.

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 already documents all parameters (id, company_id, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Alternative Response Set' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the HTTP endpoint, but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific alternative response set by ID). The verb 'Show' is vague compared to more precise alternatives like 'Retrieve' or 'Get details of'.

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 sibling tools list includes 'list_alternative_response_sets' which appears to be a list operation, suggesting this tool is for retrieving a specific item, but this distinction is not mentioned. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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