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 only states 'Show Harm Source' and includes an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief phrase and endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose. While structurally simple, it misses an opportunity to be both concise and helpful.

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 with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Harm Source' is, what data is returned, or behavioral aspects like pagination usage. For a read operation with undocumented output, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'Harm Source ID', pagination details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents all four parameters. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 Harm Source' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an HTTP endpoint, but fails to specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, display, fetch) or what a 'Harm Source' resource represents. This leaves the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_harm_sources' or 'get_harm_source_filter_options'.

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 differentiate it from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_harm_sources' for listing multiple vs. this for a single item). Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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