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. The description includes 'GET' and the endpoint path, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety aspects (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. It lacks details on what 'show' entails—whether it returns metadata, file content, or paginated results—leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 phrase and an endpoint reference. While brief, it is not front-loaded with useful information—the endpoint detail is more informative but buried. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the tautology wastes space, reducing overall effectiveness.

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, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral and usage details, the description is incomplete. For a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and likely returning upload data, it should explain the return format, pagination behavior, and error handling. The current description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 each parameter (company_id, uuid, page, per_page). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It mentions the API endpoint '[Core/File Access & Storage] GET /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/uploads/{uuid}', which hints at retrieving upload data, but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific company upload). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_company_upload' (without version) or other 'show_' tools.

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, context, or any sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., other upload-related tools in the list). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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