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 hints at a read operation via 'GET' and mentions an ID parameter, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, if it returns paginated data, or any error conditions. 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 front-loaded with useful information. It wastes space on tautological phrasing and API details that don't aid the agent. While concise, it lacks effective structure to convey purpose or usage.

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 does not explain what 'showing' entails—whether it returns a single item's details, a list, or something else—nor does it address behavioral aspects like error handling or data format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output info, this is inadequate.

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 (e.g., 'Generic Tool Item ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, adding no clarity. It includes a bracketed category '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/generic_tool_items/{id}', but these do not explain what the tool actually does—whether it retrieves metadata, displays details, or something else. The purpose remains vague.

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 any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other 'show' or 'list' tools), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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