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 only states 'Show' and includes a REST endpoint, implying a read operation, but fails to clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated data. The mention of pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema suggests pagination behavior, but the description does not explain this, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a REST endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks front-loaded clarity—the first part repeats the name, and the endpoint adds technical detail without explanatory context. It is structured but fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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 does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving the agent to rely on the schema alone. For a read operation with pagination and multiple IDs, more context is needed to ensure correct usage, such as what data is returned or error conditions.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships between company_id, inspection_template_id, and id, or the purpose of pagination parameters. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra value.

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 Inspection Template Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve, display details) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'show_company_inspection_template_item_reference' or 'show_a_company_inspection_template_item_evidence_configuration'. This minimal phrasing provides no meaningful differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating an item), or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., list_company_inspection_template_items for multiple items). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer context solely from the name and schema.

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