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' indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes the API endpoint which is useful but could be considered extraneous. No wasted words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 5 parameters (including pagination), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, authentication, and how the 'id' parameter relates to the bids. For a read operation with pagination, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (project_id, bid_package_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and the bids, or default pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Bids within a Bid package'), and includes the API endpoint path which reinforces the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_bids_within_a_bid_package' by implying a single or paginated retrieval rather than a full list, though this distinction could be more explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bids_within_a_bid_package' or 'show_a_bid_within_a_company'. The description includes a category tag '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' which provides some context, but lacks specific usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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