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 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns a single communication object). The description is too vague to provide meaningful 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 and front-loaded with the tool name and key details (category, HTTP method, endpoint). It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than concise.

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 details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'show' returns or the tool's role in the system. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide an 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Communication ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 Communication. [Project Management/Emails] GET /rest/v1.0/communications/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Communication') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve, display, fetch) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, which include many other 'show_' tools. This is closer to a tautology with minor elaboration.

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 related (e.g., other communication or retrieval tools). Without such information, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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