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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). The endpoint path suggests it retrieves a specific line item by IDs, but behavioral details like error handling or pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters) are not explained.

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 repeats the tool name and includes an endpoint string that could be inferred from context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant information. It could be more concise by focusing on the action and resource without the endpoint detail.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose beyond the name, lacks usage guidelines, and omits behavioral details needed for a read operation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context on what is returned and how to use the tool effectively, but it fails to do so.

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 parameters like 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not compensate for any gaps, but since the schema is fully described, the baseline score of 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 Direct Cost Line Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{direct_cost_id}/line_items/{id}', which hints at the resource but lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also 'show' operations on different resources.

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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other direct cost or line item tools). It fails to specify if this is for viewing a single item versus listing multiple items, leaving usage unclear.

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