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 implies a read-only GET operation but doesn't explicitly state it's safe or non-destructive. It mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page) but doesn't explain their behavioral impact (e.g., default values, max limits). The description lacks details on error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 starts with a tautological phrase, then includes an API endpoint path which is redundant with the tool name. While concise, it fails to front-load useful information for an agent, wasting space on low-value details instead of clarifying purpose or usage.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'correspondence' is in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination works with a single ID lookup. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to guide 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (company_id, bid_package_id, id, page, per_page) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between IDs or pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Correspondence' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions the API endpoint path, which indicates it's a GET operation for a specific correspondence, but it doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a single correspondence record). The purpose is vague compared to siblings like 'list_correspondences_company' or 'list_correspondences_project'.

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 doesn't mention siblings like list_correspondences_company (for listing multiple correspondences) or show_correspondence_project (for a similar tool in a different context). Without this, an agent cannot discern when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate.

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