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 states 'Show image' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the image is not found. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 extremely concise with two short phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Show image') and includes technical details (endpoint). However, it lacks completeness, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value (e.g., image data or metadata), error handling, or operational constraints. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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 all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint path '/rest/v1.0/images/{id}', which hints at the 'id' parameter but does not explain semantics like pagination usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 image' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions '[Project Management/Photos] GET /rest/v1.0/images/{id}', which provides some resource and HTTP method hints, but lacks a specific verb+resource distinction from siblings (e.g., 'list_images' or 'create_image'). It does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond the obvious.

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 exclusions. Given the sibling tools include 'list_images' and 'create_image', the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting this specific retrieval tool.

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