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 only states 'Show Environmental' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated data (given the page/per_page parameters), or handles errors. The description is minimal and fails to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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 two parts: a tautological statement and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant information (the name) and an endpoint that may not be relevant to the agent, lacking front-loaded value. While brief, it does not earn its place with useful content.

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 incomplete. It does not explain what an 'Environmental' is in this context (likely an environmental incident record), how the tool behaves, or what it returns. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for or enhance the parameter understanding.

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 Environmental. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/environmentals/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'show_environmental' and adds an API endpoint. It does not clearly explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of an environmental incident record) or distinguish it from siblings like 'list_environmentals' or 'create_environmental'. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID and environmental ID), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_environmentals' (for listing multiple) or 'create_environmental' (for creating new records). The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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