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' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though pagination params exist), error conditions, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns full schedule details). The endpoint path hints at resource specificity but lacks explicit behavioral 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Checklist Schedule'). The bracketed category and REST endpoint are additional but not verbose. However, the endpoint detail might be overly technical for an AI agent without explaining its significance. It's efficient but could be more agent-focused.

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 insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and likely complex return data. It doesn't explain what a 'Checklist Schedule' is, what the output includes, or behavioral expectations. For a read operation in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct 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 clear descriptions for all four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., id is the schedule ID within the project) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states 'Show Checklist Schedule' which indicates a retrieval/display action on a checklist schedule resource. It's clear but generic—doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_checklist_inspection_schedules' or 'show_checklist_inspection'. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds domain context but doesn't refine the purpose beyond the name.

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 REST endpoint path, which implies it's for retrieving a specific schedule by ID, but it doesn't explicitly state this or differentiate from list or search tools. Without usage context, the agent must infer from the path structure alone.

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