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 endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if IDs are invalid. The endpoint hint adds some context but lacks completeness for safe invocation.

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 three elements: tool name, category tag, and REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each part adds value (e.g., endpoint clarifies HTTP method and path structure). However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating usage notes from technical details.

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 5 parameters (3 required), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, authentication, and how pagination parameters (page, per_page) function in context. The endpoint provides some technical context, but overall, it's insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Checklist ID', 'Comment ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the endpoint path '/checklist/lists/{list_id}/comments/{id}' reinforces the relationship between list_id and id. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Checklist Comment' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Checklist Comment'), but it's vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve, display details). It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and a REST endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/comments/{id}', which clarifies it's a read operation, but the purpose remains somewhat generic without specifying output format or context.

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 sibling tools list includes many checklist-related tools (e.g., 'create_checklist_comment', 'list_checklist_inspection_comments'), but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or indicate prerequisites like required IDs. Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure.

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