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 only states 'Show company vendor insurance' with a REST endpoint, implying a read-only fetch operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the REST endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/vendors/{vendor_id}/insurances/{id}' is somewhat redundant and could be omitted for better conciseness, though it doesn't severely impact readability.

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 tool that fetches specific insurance details (likely a read operation), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'show' entails (e.g., returns insurance details), error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying IDs are needed, but doesn't explain relationships (e.g., hierarchy of company→vendor→insurance) or usage of optional pagination params. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 insurance' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource (company vendor insurance) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'show' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_company_insurance' or 'show_project_vendor_insurance', which are present in the list. This is a tautology with slight expansion.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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