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. It mentions 'Show company Folder' and a GET request, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The URL snippet adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 purpose ('Show company Folder'), followed by a URL path. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the URL could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 lacks details on what 'show' returns (e.g., folder metadata, children, paginated results) and behavioral aspects like pagination or exclusion effects. For a tool with 6 parameters and read operations, 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 (e.g., 'ID of the Folder'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't explain interactions like how 'exclude_folders' and 'exclude_files' affect the output.

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 Folder' states the basic action (show) and resource (company folder), but it's vague about what 'show' entails—whether it retrieves metadata, contents, or both. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_folder_and_file_index' or 'project_folder_and_file_index', which might list folders versus showing a specific one.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a URL path '[Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/folders/{id}', which hints at an API endpoint but doesn't explain usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'show_project_folder').

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