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' (implying read-only) and hints at admin settings, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the classification doesn't exist. The description is too sparse to inform safe usage.

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 (one line) but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on HTTP details that don't add value for an AI agent. It could be more structured with a clear verb and context.

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, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves a specific resource (likely a read operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'work classification' is, what data is returned, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps.

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 company_id and id, and pagination parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents parameters.

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 Classification. [Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_classifications/{id}' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Show Classification') and adds an HTTP method and path, but doesn't clearly explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific work classification for a company). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_classification_project' or 'list_all_classifications'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., company admin access), when to use it over list tools, or any exclusions. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permissions but is unclear and not explicit.

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