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 hints at a read operation via 'GET' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or non-destructive. It omits behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. 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—two brief phrases without wasted words. However, it is not optimally structured; the domain context '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs]' is buried, and the HTTP method 'GET' could be more prominent. Despite this, it efficiently conveys core elements (action, resource, method) in a compact form.

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 a 4-parameter input schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return format, error handling, or how pagination parameters function in a 'show' operation (which typically retrieves a single item). For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id', and adequate ones for 'page' and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships (e.g., 'id' is a direct cost item ID within the project) or usage constraints (e.g., pagination applies only if multiple items exist). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Direct Cost Item') and adds minimal context (domain and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'show_direct_cost_item' (without version suffix) or other retrieval tools. The purpose is vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata).

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a direct cost item), or differentiate from similar tools like 'list_direct_cost_items' or 'show_direct_cost_item' (if present). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer context solely from the name and schema.

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