Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not specify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It mentions an endpoint with '{id}', hinting at retrieval by ID, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 tool's purpose, followed by category and endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details) and slightly under-specified, but it is efficient with its words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., payment details, status), how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or the relationships between 'id', 'project_id', and 'contract_id'. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

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 (e.g., 'id', 'project_id', 'contract_id', 'page', 'per_page'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying an ID is needed via '{id}' in the endpoint. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 Contract Payment. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/contract_payments/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Contract Payment') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a category hint ('Construction Financials/Commitments') and an endpoint, but does not specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, view summary) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_contract_payments' or 'create_contract_payment'.

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 (e.g., needing specific IDs), differentiate from list operations, or indicate use cases. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_contract_payments', 'create_contract_payment'), the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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