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 mentions a GET operation, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description adds minimal context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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: a brief purpose statement and a REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the endpoint detail may be redundant if the tool is auto-generated from the API, but it does not waste space with unnecessary elaboration.

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 minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational context. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more completeness would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable threshold.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 version' states a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('company file version'), but it is vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, display details). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, as many siblings are 'show' operations for different resources, but the specific resource is identified.

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 includes a REST endpoint '[Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/file_versions/{id}', which implies a specific API call but does not offer contextual usage advice, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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