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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'GET' and the word 'Show', but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., paginated list). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 parts: a tautological title and a resource path. It's front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part ('Show Change History') adds little value. The structure is simple but lacks informative content, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. The resource path hints at the context but doesn't provide enough detail for the agent to understand the tool's full scope or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps.

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 all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between project_id and id or the pagination behavior. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Show Change History' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource path ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entries/{id}/change_history'), which indicates it retrieves change history for a specific time and material entry, but it doesn't explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list') or differentiate from siblings like 'change_history' (which appears to be a sibling tool). The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project and entry ID), context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes a tool named 'change_history' (without the 'show_' prefix), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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