Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/drawing_uploads/{id}', which implies it's an HTTP GET operation (read-only), but doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') suggests paginated results, but this isn't explained. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 technically concise (three brief phrases), but this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. The first phrase 'Show Drawing Upload' is tautological, the second '[Project Management/Drawings]' provides minimal context, and the third 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/drawing_uploads/{id}' is technical endpoint information that might be redundant in an MCP context. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively 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 complexity (5 parameters including pagination and view options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Drawing Upload' resource contains, what the different 'view' options mean in practice, how pagination works with a single resource ID, or what the response structure looks like. For a tool that retrieves a specific resource with configuration options, this leaves critical gaps for the agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'view' affects response format) or provide examples. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting with complete descriptions, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 Upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'show' means (retrieve details? display? get metadata?) or clarify what a 'Drawing Upload' resource represents. The bracketed '[Project Management/Drawings]' provides some domain context but doesn't define the action. Compared to sibling tools like 'show_drawing_upload_v1_1' (which appears to be the same tool) or 'list_drawing_uploads_v1_1', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_drawing_uploads_v1_1' (which likely lists multiple uploads) or 'show_drawing_v1_1' (which might show the drawing itself rather than the upload). There's no indication whether this is for retrieving metadata, viewing status, or accessing uploaded content, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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