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 mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The mention of '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' hints at access control but is too vague to be actionable.

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 front-loads the tautological 'Show Generic Tool Item' but buries the more useful API endpoint information. The two bracketed segments could be integrated more smoothly. While not verbose, it doesn't maximize information density.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Generic Tool Item' is, what data is returned, or how this differs from similar retrieval tools. The API endpoint path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage 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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the API endpoint path which implies the hierarchical relationship of IDs, but this is already clear from the schema's required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 Generic Tool Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It adds '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which suggests an access level but doesn't specify what action is performed or what resource is retrieved. The HTTP method 'GET' implies retrieval, but the purpose remains vague compared to what could be explicitly stated.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. Given the many sibling tools (like 'show_generic_tool_item_v1_0'), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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