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. 'Show' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, returns paginated results (despite having page/per_page parameters), or has any side effects. The HTTP method 'GET' is mentioned but adds little value beyond what's implied by 'show'.

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 inefficient—it wastes characters on tautological restatement and HTTP method details that don't help the agent. While front-loaded, it fails to use its limited space to provide meaningful guidance. The bracketed domain context is useful but buried.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'budget line item' is, what 'show' returns, or how pagination parameters interact with the required id/project_id. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool 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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain why both id and project_id are required or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Budget Line Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like 'show_budget_line_item_v1_1' or other 'show_' tools). The bracketed '[Construction Financials/Budget]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify what 'show' actually does.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With hundreds of sibling tools (including another 'show_budget_line_item_v1_1'), there's no indication of differences, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts. The agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool.

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