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-only operation ('Show') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The API endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but no explicit safety or performance details are given.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Checklist (Inspection)'), followed by domain context and API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail might be overly technical for some users. Every sentence serves a purpose, but it could be more structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Show' entails (e.g., returns checklist details, items, status) or the response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context on behavior and returns is needed 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Checklist ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. 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 'Show Checklist (Inspection)' restates the tool name and adds minimal context ('[Project Management/Inspections]'), but lacks a specific verb and resource clarity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_checklist' or 'show_checklist_item'), making the purpose vague beyond basic retrieval.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes an API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/lists/{id}'), but this is technical detail, not usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or typical scenarios.

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