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 mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and an API path. It's front-loaded with the tool's name and action, but the API path adds clutter without clear value. Overall, it's efficient but could be more polished.

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 a 'Checklist Item Response' is, the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and read operations, more context is needed to guide 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (item_id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format constraints or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Show Checklist Item Response') and resource ('Checklist Item Response'), but it's vague about what 'show' means—does it retrieve, display, or list? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_checklist_item' or 'list_checklist_item_observations', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and API path, but these don't provide usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'show_checklist_item' or 'list_checklist_item_observations'.

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