Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if it returns paginated results (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied read action, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 brief statement and an endpoint reference. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it lacks front-loaded clarity and fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is minimal but not effectively informative, as it leaves critical usage and behavioral details unaddressed, making it more sparse than optimally concise.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like 'sub_job_id', 'page', and 'per_page', nor does it describe the return values or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by detailing behavioral and output aspects, which it fails to do, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper invocation.

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 parameter definitions (e.g., 'id' as unique identifier, 'project_id' for project context). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides—it mentions the endpoint path '/cost_codes/{id}' but does not explain parameter interactions or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra description value.

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 Cost Code. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] GET /rest/v1.0/cost_codes/{id}' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'show_cost_code' with minimal elaboration. While it hints at the domain (Construction Financials/WBS) and HTTP method, it lacks a specific verb+resource action definition that distinguishes it from sibling tools. The description does not clarify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display information) beyond the name.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (e.g., 'list_cost_codes', 'create_cost_code', 'update_cost_code'), there is no indication of how this tool differs, such as for retrieving a single cost code by ID rather than listing multiple. This absence of comparative context 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.