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 a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and category, and another specifying the HTTP method and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the second sentence is more technical than user-friendly. There's no wasted text, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values, error cases, or how the 'view' parameter affects output. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks crucial context for effective use, making this incomplete.

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 parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'view' enum implications or pagination behavior. However, the baseline is 3 since the 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's purpose as 'Show Commitment Contract' with a category hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]', which clarifies the domain and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_a_commitment_contract' or 'show_commitment_contract_summary_v2_0', making it vague about its specific scope or version differences.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'show_commitment_contract_summary_v2_0' or 'list_commitment_contracts_v2_0'), 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.