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 implies a read operation ('Show') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The API endpoint suggests a GET request, but this is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 brief sentences, but it's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second part ('[Construction Financials/Budget] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget') is somewhat redundant and could be more structured. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 generic purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'meta data' includes, the return format, or behavioral context. For a tool with 3 parameters and many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it 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 clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 meta data. [Construction Financials/Budget] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget' restates the tool name ('show_budget_meta_data') and adds a vague phrase ('meta data') without specifying what 'meta data' entails. It includes an API endpoint but doesn't clearly state the action (e.g., retrieve, list) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_budget_views' or 'show_budget_line_item'. This is borderline tautological with minimal added clarity.

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. With many sibling tools related to budgets (e.g., 'list_budget_views', 'show_budget_line_item'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. The API endpoint hint doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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