Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'GET' and includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), implying a read-only, list-like operation. However, it fails to explicitly state that it's a read operation, describe potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 brief but not front-loaded with essential information. It mixes a vague purpose statement with technical details (endpoint, HTTP method). While concise, it could be more structured to prioritize clarity. The sentence does not waste words but under-specifies the tool's purpose.

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 incomplete. It does not explain what 'classification' entails, the format of the response, or error conditions. For a tool with four parameters (two required) and no structured output documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use by an AI 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 descriptions for all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the REST endpoint path '/rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_classifications/{id}', which clarifies that 'id' refers to a work classification ID, but this is inferred from the path rather than explicitly stated. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'show_classification_project' without specifying what 'classification' refers to (e.g., work classifications in a project). It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not differentiate from sibling tools, which include many other 'show_' tools for various resources.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant for similar queries. The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' and a REST endpoint is technical detail, not usage guidance.

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