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/v1.0/...', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, leaving significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological name, includes a useful context hint in brackets, and adds the API endpoint, which may aid debugging but is not essential for an AI agent. It could be more concise by removing redundancy and focusing on actionable information.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose, usage, or behavior adequately. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 parameters like 'company_id' and 'id'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. With high coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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 WBS Segment' is a tautology that restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It includes a bracketed context hint '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and API endpoint, but fails to specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, display, or fetch) or what resource is targeted beyond the name. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'show_project_wbs_segment' or 'list_company_wbs_segments'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_wbs_segments' for listing segments vs. this for showing a specific one). It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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