Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/items/{id}', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. The HTTP method hint is useful but 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Checklist Item'). The bracketed category and endpoint provide additional context efficiently. However, the endpoint string is somewhat technical and could be simplified for an AI agent, though it doesn't waste space.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'showing' a checklist item returns (e.g., details, status, attachments) or handle the pagination parameters (page, per_page) which suggest list-like behavior. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed.

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 (e.g., 'list_id: Checklist ID', 'id: Item ID'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 'Show Checklist Item' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what 'show' entails (retrieve details vs. display). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_checklist' or 'show_checklist_inspection', which are similar retrieval operations. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds domain context but doesn't refine the purpose.

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. With many sibling tools like 'show_checklist', 'show_checklist_inspection', and 'show_checklist_section', the description offers no differentiation. It lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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