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 implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), suggesting it is non-destructive, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The inclusion of the endpoint hints at an API call but lacks behavioral details like response format or pagination (though pagination parameters exist).

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Budget Line Item'). The additional context ([Construction Financials/Budget] and the endpoint) is concise but could be more structured. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it lacks complete sentences 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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'show' returns (e.g., budget line item details), error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation with four parameters (including 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is well-documented. The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified parameter interactions (e.g., 'id' vs. 'project_id').

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. [Construction Financials/Budget] GET /rest/v1.1/budget_line_items/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Budget Line Item') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (budget line item) and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_budget_line_item' (without version) or other 'show_' tools. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details).

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_budget_line_items' for multiple items or 'create_budget_line_item_v1_1' for creation) or any prerequisites like required permissions. Without usage context, an agent must infer from the name alone.

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