Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 with two parts: a restated name and an endpoint/context note. It is front-loaded but includes redundant information (repeating the name). Every sentence earns its place by adding endpoint details, though it could be more structured.

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, no output schema, and 5 parameters with complex enums (e.g., 'view'), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Custom Field Metadatum' is, the significance of the 'view' parameter, or the return structure. For a tool with administrative context and multiple parameters, more context is needed.

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 parameters (id, view, company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining the purpose of 'view' enums or pagination context. Baseline 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 'Show Custom Field Metadatum' restates the tool name and adds minimal context with '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] GET /rest/v1.0/custom_field_metadata/{id}'. It indicates a read operation ('Show') on a 'Custom Field Metadatum' resource, but is vague about what 'Metadatum' entails and does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_custom_field_metadata' or 'get_single_custom_field'.

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', hinting at administrative context, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools for comparison, leaving usage ambiguous.

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