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 mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's name and category, and another with the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). There's no wasted text, making it efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior (e.g., read-only, pagination), output format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this leaves critical 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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (id, project_id, contract_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'id' is for the package, 'project_id' is required). Baseline 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Change Order Package' and includes the API endpoint, which indicates it retrieves a specific change order package. However, it's vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_change_order_packages' or 'show_change_order_request', leaving ambiguity in its specific role.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific ID), comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_change_order_packages' for multiple packages), or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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