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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The permission hint ('Company Admin/Custom') is vague and doesn't specify required roles or access levels.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extraneous technical details like the HTTP method and endpoint path that don't aid the AI agent in tool selection. The permission hint in brackets is useful but could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's concise but could be more focused on agent guidance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structure of a custom field definition), error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with 6 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the expected response and usage constraints.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the practical differences between view options like 'default' vs 'extended'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 clearly states the action ('Show') and resource ('Custom Field Definition'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_custom_field_definitions' by focusing on retrieving a single definition by ID rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_single_custom_field' or other similar 'show' tools, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which hints at permission context but doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'list_custom_field_definitions' or other retrieval tools. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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