Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show Company Checklist Template' with a URL, implying a read operation but not confirming if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It misses critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, but the first sentence is redundant. The inclusion of the URL path adds technical context without verbosity. However, the tautological opening reduces efficiency, though overall structure is straightforward.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Show' entails—whether it returns a single template object, a paginated list, or metadata. The parameters suggest pagination ('page', 'per_page'), but the description fails to address this, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate or add value, but it also does not detract.

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 Checklist Template' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and a URL path 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/list_templates/{id}', but these do not explain what the tool actually does—whether it retrieves details, lists items, or displays a specific template. The description fails to specify the verb and resource meaningfully.

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 sibling tools or contextual cues for selection, such as distinguishing it from other checklist-related tools (e.g., 'show_checklist_template' or 'list_company_checklist_templates'). Without usage instructions, the agent lacks direction.

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