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 of behavioral disclosure. It includes the HTTP method 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state this or address other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied read operation.

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, consisting of a single sentence followed by the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though that purpose is vague. There is no wasted verbiage, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective communication.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., form template details), any pagination behavior implied by the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, or error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for 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., 'Company Form Template ID', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 Form Template' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Forms] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/form_templates/{id}', which provides technical context but does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific form template). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_company_form_templates' or 'show_company_form_template_from_project'.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a specific company_id and template id, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'list_company_form_templates' (which might list multiple templates). There is no explicit or implied usage context.

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