Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this or discuss any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are missing. The technical endpoint fragment adds minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely brief at just two fragments, but the second fragment containing technical endpoint details feels misplaced and doesn't contribute to user-facing understanding. While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure isn't front-loaded with the most important information for an AI agent.

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 5-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned about a company office, how pagination works with the 'view', 'page', and 'per_page' parameters, or any error conditions. The technical endpoint fragment doesn't compensate for these significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'id' and 'company_id', or clarify the purpose of 'view', 'page', and 'per_page' parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage despite the description adding no 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 office' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource specification beyond what's obvious from the name. While it mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/offices/{id}', this is technical endpoint information rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 doesn't mention any sibling tools or contextual factors that would help an agent decide when this retrieval operation is appropriate versus other office-related operations. The technical endpoint information doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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