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 states 'Show' and includes 'GET' in the API path, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's safe or non-destructive. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (even though 'page' and 'per_page' parameters suggest paginated results). The description adds minimal context beyond the API endpoint.

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—two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and API endpoint. There's no unnecessary fluff, and it's front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating functional description from technical details.

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 read operation with pagination parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Company Action Plan Template Reference' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The API path hints at the resource structure but doesn't provide enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior or 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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the API path '/rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/action_plans/plan_template_references/{id}', which aligns with the required parameters but doesn't explain their usage further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 'Show Company Action Plan Template Reference' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating it without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path, which provides some context but doesn't explain what the tool actually does in functional terms (e.g., retrieves details of a specific action plan template reference for a company). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_company_action_plan_template' or 'list_company_action_plan_template_references'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id and reference ID), nor does it differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'show_company_action_plan_template', 'list_company_action_plan_template_references'). The API path implies it's for retrieving a specific reference, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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