Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single sentence that states the tool name and includes the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the API endpoint detail might be redundant for an agent that doesn't need low-level HTTP information, but it doesn't waste space.

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 what a 'commitment change order' is in this domain, the expected output format, error handling, or prerequisites. For a read operation with pagination and view options, more context is needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (like explaining the relationship between project_id and id, or when to use 'view' options). This meets the baseline for 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 states the tool shows a commitment change order, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'show_commitment_change_order_batch' or 'show_all_commitment_change_orders', leaving the scope unclear. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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. With many sibling tools related to commitment change orders (like show_all_commitment_change_orders, show_commitment_change_order_batch), the agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool for retrieving a single change order by ID. This omission is significant given the context.

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