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'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated data. The endpoint hint suggests it's an HTTP GET, but this isn't explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 (one line) but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose ('Show Checklist'), but the REST endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent. It's not wasteful, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between 'id' and 'project_id', or how pagination works. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 ('Show Checklist') and provides a category hint ('[Project Management/Inspections]'), but it's vague about what 'show' entails—does it retrieve details, list items, or display a specific checklist? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_checklists' or 'show_checklist_inspection', leaving ambiguity.

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 includes a REST endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{id}'), but this is technical detail, not usage context. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid checklist ID, or compare it to other checklist-related tools in the sibling list.

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