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 via 'GET' and mentions pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), suggesting it may return paginated data. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data (especially since there is no output schema). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 but under-specified. It consists of two parts: a tautological title restatement and a contextual snippet with domain and endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it lacks substantive content that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage. The structure is front-loaded but with low informational value, making it minimally adequate but not efficient in conveying useful information.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the broader system, what data is returned (e.g., section details, items within), or how pagination works. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context on behavior and results, but it does not, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer 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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'list_id' as 'Checklist ID', 'id' as 'Checklist Section ID'). The description does not add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema provides—it only repeats parameter names in the URL path. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Section' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds '[Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/sections/{id}', which provides some context (domain and HTTP method) but lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement. It does not clearly distinguish what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display items) compared to siblings like 'show_checklist' or 'list_checklist_sections'.

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 description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after listing sections), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'show_checklist' for overall checklist details or 'list_checklist_sections' for multiple sections). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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