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' implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the hazard ID doesn't exist. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase ('Show Hazard'), a category tag, and an HTTP endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential information that would help the agent, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 complexity (a read operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'hazard' is in this context, the expected output format, error conditions, or how pagination works. For a tool that retrieves specific records, this lack of context makes it inadequate for effective use.

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 already documents all parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between company_id and id or clarifying pagination behavior. However, with high schema coverage, 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 Hazard. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/hazards/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Hazard') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_hazards' or 'update_hazard', making the purpose vague beyond basic retrieval.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_hazards' for listing multiple hazards or 'update_hazard' for modifications), nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or context. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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