Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or pagination details. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') hints at paginated output, but this is not explained. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free 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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with the endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by clearly separating purpose from technical details, but it remains efficient.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., file metadata or content), error conditions, and behavioral aspects like pagination or authentication needs. The endpoint hint is useful but does not compensate for the missing context required for effective tool 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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'ID of the File'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path placeholders. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 File. [Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/files/{id}' restates the tool name ('show_company_file') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('company File') and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_company_file_version' or 'show_project_file'). This is a tautology with minor elaboration.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'show_company_file_version', 'show_project_file'), there is no distinction. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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