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 mentions it's a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful response. The API endpoint format suggests it retrieves a single vendor by ID, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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 concise at just two short phrases. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose statement, though that statement itself is inadequate. No unnecessary verbiage or repetition exists in the brief text provided.

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?

For a read operation with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how the 'view' parameter affects the response, or the purpose of pagination parameters for what appears to be a single-item retrieval. Without annotations and with minimal description, an agent would struggle to use this tool effectively despite the comprehensive input schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing additional about parameter usage or relationships.

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 vendor' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action is performed (retrieve, display, fetch) or what resource is targeted beyond the obvious. While it includes an API endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/vendors/{id}', this is technical implementation detail 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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With hundreds of sibling tools including other vendor-related tools like 'list_company_vendors', 'create_company_vendor', and 'update_company_vendor', there's no indication of when this specific 'show' operation is appropriate versus listing or other retrieval methods.

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