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. It only indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters in the schema). The description adds minimal value beyond the implied 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 concise but under-specified. It consists of a tautological title, a vague category, and an API endpoint. While not verbose, it lacks meaningful content that earns its place, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise. It could be more structured with a clear purpose statement.

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 (a read operation with pagination parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'contributing behavior' entails, the expected output format, or how pagination works. For a tool with no output schema, the description should compensate by detailing return values, but it fails to do so, 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 clear descriptions for all parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., that 'id' is the contributing behavior ID) or usage nuances. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Contributing Behavior. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_behaviors/{id}' is largely tautological, restating the tool name ('Show Contributing Behavior') and adding a generic category and API endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view, fetch) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools, many of which are also 'show' operations for different resources.

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 (e.g., after an incident), or differentiate it from similar tools like 'list_contributing_behaviors' or 'show_contributing_condition' among the siblings. The agent is left without usage direction.

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