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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions a GET request, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns detailed data, includes attachments). It lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with six 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 concise (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loaded, but it's under-specified—it wastes space on the endpoint instead of explaining purpose or usage. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary information efficiently, making it mediocre in structure.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'show' returns, how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or the implications of 'view' and 'viewpoint_format' enums. For a detailed retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters (id, project_id, view, viewpoint_format, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate or add value here.

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 Coordination Issue. [Project Management/Coordination Issues] GET /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues/{id}' is largely tautological—it restates the tool name ('Show Coordination Issue') and adds an HTTP method and endpoint, but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond echoing the name. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_coordination_issues' or 'show_coordination_issue_count_by_status'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other coordination issue tools (e.g., 'list_coordination_issues' for listing multiple issues). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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