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 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite having page/per_page parameters). The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 wastes space on restating the name and includes an API endpoint that may not be helpful to an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks informative content. While brief, it does not earn its place with useful 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 is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., direct cost item details), behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a tool with 4 parameters and read-like operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately covers the parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate or add 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 Direct Cost Item. [Construction Financials/Direct Costs] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Direct Cost Item') and adds a category label and API endpoint, but does not specify what the tool does beyond 'show'—it lacks a clear verb+resource explanation (e.g., retrieve details of a specific direct cost item by ID). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single item, but the purpose remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools (e.g., list_direct_cost_items, show_direct_cost_item_v1_1) or contextual usage, such as retrieving a single item versus listing multiple items. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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