Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/company_security_settings', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe (non-destructive), lacks rate limit warnings, or describe output format. The HTTP method hint is useful but insufficient for full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the tool purpose and HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the bracketed permission hint and endpoint details could be structured more clearly. No wasted words, but slightly dense.

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 lacks critical details: it doesn't explain what 'Company Security Settings' includes, the response structure, or pagination behavior. For a read operation with potential complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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., 'Unique identifier for the company.' for company_id). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Security Settings' states the action ('Show') and resource ('Company Security Settings'), but it's vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., list, retrieve details). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'show_company_configuration' or 'show_project_schedule_settings', which have similar naming patterns but different resources.

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 includes '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at required permissions/context, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. project-level security tools). No guidance on prerequisites like company_id necessity or pagination use cases is provided.

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