Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show app configuration' and includes a platform/endpoint reference, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'show' but not explicit), what authentication or permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like (especially with no output schema). The endpoint hint adds minimal context but is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and an endpoint reference. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the endpoint detail, while potentially useful for developers, does not directly aid an AI agent in tool selection and could be considered extraneous. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the description is slightly under-specified for clarity.

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 (a read operation with required IDs and pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'app configuration' includes, the expected return structure, or behavioral aspects like error handling. The endpoint hint offers some context but is not sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage in the absence of structured metadata.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters (id, company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing extra 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 app configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It lacks specificity about what 'app configuration' entails (e.g., settings, metadata, permissions) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list_app_configurations' or 'create_app_configuration', which are clearly different operations.

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 (e.g., needing a specific app configuration ID), differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_app_configurations' for listing multiple configurations), or specify any contextual constraints. This 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.