Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). The description 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 with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent if structured fields cover it, but it does not waste space.

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 (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination usage, or error conditions. For a read operation with pagination, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Bid Package' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Bid Package'), which clarifies the action. However, it is vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list items) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_bid_package_project' or 'list_bid_packages', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 includes a category '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and an API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/bid_packages/{id}', which implies context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'list_bid_packages' for listing multiple). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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