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 a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and includes the API endpoint, which is useful for context. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating functional details from the endpoint reference.

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 complexity of a read operation with pagination and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., modification details), how to handle the pagination parameters, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for 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, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between project_id and id or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 states the tool shows a budget modification, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_budget_modifications' or 'show_budget_line_item', leaving the scope ambiguous. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., details vs. summary).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for viewing a specific modification by ID after listing modifications. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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