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 Commitment Contract Summary' and includes an API endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two parts: a functional statement and an API endpoint. However, the API endpoint is redundant and does not add value for tool selection, making the structure slightly inefficient. It is front-loaded but includes unnecessary detail.

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 description that lacks behavioral and usage context, the description is incomplete. It fails to compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and output.

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 the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between company_id, project_id, and contract_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 contract summary, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_commitment_contract' or 'show_commitment_contract_summary_v2_0' (if present elsewhere), and the inclusion of the API endpoint adds noise but no functional 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison, 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.