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 operation ('Show', 'GET'), but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, safe, or non-destructive. It also omits behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite having 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads with a tautology ('Show Department.') and includes technical endpoint details that may not aid the agent. While concise, it wastes space on non-helpful information rather than focusing on purpose or usage. It could be more effectively structured to guide the agent.

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, 2 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (department details), how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or any error conditions. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Department ID' for 'id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it only mentions the endpoint path with '{id}', which is redundant with the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Department. [Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/departments/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Department') and adds technical endpoint details, but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what it actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific department by ID). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_departments' or 'create_department', which is critical given the sibling list includes many department-related tools.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a department ID), contrast with sibling tools like 'list_departments' for listing all departments, or specify use cases for retrieving a single department's details. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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