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 only states 'Show Company Insurance' with a REST endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The endpoint hint ('GET') implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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 tautological title and a REST endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint detail adds some value but is not front-loaded with actionable information, making it mediocre in structure.

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 of a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'showing' entails (e.g., returns insurance details), behavioral context, or usage relative to siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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., 'company_id' as a unique identifier). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, making it vague about what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details, list policies). Compared to siblings like 'list_company_insurances' or 'create_company_insurance', it fails to distinguish its purpose.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_insurances' for listing multiple insurances). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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