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. The description implies a read operation ('Show' and GET method) but does not specify behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated data (given 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or has rate limits. The endpoint format suggests it fetches a specific revision, but without annotations, the description lacks critical context on safety, performance, or side effects.

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 three elements: a tautological phrase, a category, and an endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—the first part wastes space restating the name, while the endpoint adds value but could be structured better. It is front-loaded with the tautology, reducing effectiveness. A more purposeful first sentence would improve structure without adding length.

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 of a read operation with pagination parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., revision details, files, or metadata), how pagination works with a single ID, or any error conditions. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for an agent to understand the full context, especially without behavioral or output information.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'ID of the Drawing Revision', 'Page number for pagination', 'Items per page (max 100)'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 Drawing Revision' is a tautology that restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_revisions/{id}', which hints at a read operation on a drawing revision resource, but the purpose is vague and lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, metadata, or content). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_drawing_revisions' or 'show_drawing_upload_v1_1'.

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, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'list_drawing_revisions' (for listing) and 'show_drawing_upload_v1_1' (for upload details), there is no indication of when this specific 'show' operation is appropriate, such as for retrieving a single revision by ID versus browsing multiple revisions.

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