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 states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 (one sentence with a path) and front-loaded with the tool name, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space by restating the name and including a full API path without explaining purpose or usage. While brief, it lacks the density of useful information that would warrant a higher score.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'contributing condition' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works (page/per_page are optional but not contextualized). Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for company_id, id, page, and per_page. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it only mentions the path structure). Since schema coverage is high, 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 Contributing Condition. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_conditions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Contributing Condition') and adds an HTTP method and path, but it does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific contributing condition in incident management). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_contributing_conditions' or 'show_contributing_behavior'.

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 (e.g., needing a specific company_id and id), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contributing_conditions' (for listing multiple) or 'show_contributing_behavior' (for a different entity). Usage is implied only by the path parameters, but no explicit context is given.

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