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 states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), permissions required (e.g., company admin role hinted in brackets), rate limits, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist). The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 sentences, but it is not front-loaded with essential information. The first sentence restates the name, and the second adds the endpoint path and a bracketed hint ('[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]'), which is useful but buried. While efficient, it could be more structured to prioritize purpose and context over technical details.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., custom field section data), error conditions, or how pagination works with the 'id' parameter. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining behavioral aspects and output expectations, which it does not do adequately.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Custom Fields Section ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'id' is required for retrieval, 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination). However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Fields Section' restates the tool name, providing minimal additional clarity. It mentions the endpoint path 'GET /rest/v1.0/custom_fields_sections/{id}', which implies a read operation, but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving details, metadata, or fields). It does not differentiate from sibling tools, which include many 'show_' and 'list_' operations, leaving the agent uncertain about its exact function.

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 (e.g., company admin role), or sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'list_custom_field_sections' or 'show_custom_field_definition'). Without this, the agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios or distinguish it from similar tools.

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