Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It hints at a read operation via 'GET' and includes pagination parameters, but does not disclose critical behaviors: whether it's safe (read-only), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose ('Show Form') but includes extraneous details like the API path, which may not aid the agent. It could be more focused on user intent rather than implementation details.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, authentication needs, and behavioral traits. For a retrieval tool with four parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying path parameters via the URL template. Baseline 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 Form. [Project Management/Forms] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/forms/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Form') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('Form') and HTTP method, but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_forms_on_a_project'). This is borderline tautological with 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools like 'list_forms_on_a_project' for listing forms. It fails to help the agent decide between retrieval vs. listing operations.

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