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 only states 'Show' and the HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters exist), authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description lacks essential 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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence with the tool name, domain hint, and API endpoint. While efficient, it lacks necessary explanatory content, making it feel sparse rather than optimally concise. It's front-loaded with the tool name but doesn't follow with clarifying information.

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 (a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is, what data is returned, how pagination works, or error handling. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that id refers to a specific batch) or usage nuances.

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 Commitment Change Order Batch' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating it without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path but doesn't specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, list items) or what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is in practical terms. The domain hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' is helpful but insufficient for clear purpose definition.

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 sibling tools list includes many 'show_' and 'list_' tools, but the description doesn't differentiate this one from them (e.g., 'show_all_commitment_change_order_batches' exists). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to similar tools, leaving 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.