Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Show') and includes 'GET' method, suggesting non-destructive behavior, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The mention of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at admin-level access but is vague. More behavioral details are needed for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 parts: 'Show Company Configuration' and '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/company_configuration'. However, it includes API endpoint details which may be redundant if the tool abstracts that. The structure is front-loaded but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'Company Configuration' entails, expected output format, pagination behavior, error handling, or admin requirements. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral data, 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to compensate.

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 Configuration' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Company Configuration'), indicating a read operation to display configuration details. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that are create/update/delete operations, but does not explicitly differentiate from other 'show' or 'get' tools that might retrieve similar data.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at required permissions but does not specify prerequisites, context, or compare with other configuration-related tools. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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