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 indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (even though pagination parameters exist). The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 core action. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and path ('GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/sections/{id}') is redundant for an AI agent that doesn't need low-level API details, slightly reducing efficiency. It could be more concise by omitting technical specifics.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Company Checklist Section' contains, the format of the returned data, or how pagination works (despite pagination parameters). For a tool with four parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances.

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 action ('Show') and resource ('Company Checklist Section'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'show_checklist_section' or 'show_company_checklist_template', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of the HTTP method and path adds technical detail but doesn't enhance 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 mentions '[Project Management/Inspections]' which hints at a domain context, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate it from similar retrieval tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'show_checklist_section'). This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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