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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 restates the name and adds an endpoint, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on redundant information (name) and includes an endpoint detail that may not be helpful to an AI agent, failing to front-load useful guidance.

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 basic read operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'showing' entails (e.g., returns template details), behavioral traits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer usage.

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 (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high 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 'Show Company Action Plan Template' restates the tool name and title, offering no additional clarity. It lacks a specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not distinguish the tool from its many siblings, which include other 'show_' tools. This is a tautology that fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. This absence is critical given the extensive list of sibling tools.

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