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 states 'Show Checklist Template' and includes an API endpoint, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any error conditions. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema hints at list-like behavior, but the description doesn't explain this, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 but under-specified rather than concise. It includes the tool name, a category tag, and an API endpoint, but these elements don't add meaningful value for an AI agent. The structure is not front-loaded with actionable information, and the endpoint detail is likely redundant in an MCP context. It avoids verbosity but fails to be informative.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, lacks behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for the agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively is insufficient, especially without output details or annotations.

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 parameters (e.g., 'Checklist Template ID', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 Template' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It adds '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the API endpoint, but fails to specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, display, or list) or what a 'checklist template' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_checklist_templates', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific function.

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 any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'list_checklist_templates' or 'show_checklist') that might serve similar purposes. 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.