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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., GPS coordinates, timestamps). The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output.

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 (one sentence) but inefficiently structured—it front-loads the tautological name and includes low-value details like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which are redundant with the tool's definition. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity to convey meaningful information, resulting in under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving a specific resource by ID with pagination parameters), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It does not explain the purpose of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in a 'show' operation, the response format, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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., 'ID of the Gps Position', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Gps Position. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/gps_positions/{id}' is largely tautological—it restates the tool name ('Show Gps Position') and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a specific GPS position by ID, display details, or list positions). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_gps_positions' or 'create_gps_position'.

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 siblings like 'list_gps_positions' or 'create_gps_position', nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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