Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Show' (implying read-only) and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting a safe read operation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite having page/per_page parameters). The description adds minimal 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 concise but poorly structured. It repeats the tool name, includes a bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' that adds little value, and appends the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/billing_periods/{id}' which is redundant with the tool's implementation. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the extra elements don't earn their place.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'billing period' entails in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination works with page/per_page. For a read operation with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain relationships between project_id and id, or clarify that page/per_page are for pagination of nested data. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no value here.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Show Billing Period for Project' indicates it retrieves billing period information for a specific project. It includes the resource (billing period) and context (project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_billing_periods' or 'create_billing_period', which would require mentioning it's for retrieving a single specific billing period by ID.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_billing_periods' (for listing multiple periods) or 'create_billing_period' (for creating new ones), nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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