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 mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if IDs are invalid. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another providing the HTTP method and path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence is technical and might be redundant if the agent already has structured API info, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral expectations. For a tool that retrieves specific resources, more context on output format and usage scenarios is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Checklist ID', 'Signature Request ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra value is provided regarding parameter usage or constraints.

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 tool shows a checklist signature request, which indicates a retrieval operation. However, it's vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'list_checklist_signature_requests' or 'show_checklist_signature'. The inclusion of the HTTP method and path adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing specific IDs), typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'list_checklist_signature_requests' (which might list multiple) or 'show_checklist_signature' (which might show a signature itself). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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