Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only operation ('Show') and includes an HTTP GET method, suggesting non-destructive behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The mention of '[Project Management/Photos]' hints at a domain context but is vague.

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 inefficiently structured. The first part 'Show image category' is under-specified, while the appended API endpoint adds technical clutter without improving clarity. It is not front-loaded with essential usage information. However, it avoids excessive verbosity, keeping it to a single line with two disjointed components.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, error handling, return format, and pagination behavior. The API endpoint provides some context but does not compensate for missing behavioral details. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to guide the agent on what to expect from the tool's execution.

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 schema (e.g., 'ID of the image category', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, the baseline score is 3 because the schema adequately documents parameters, and the description does not contradict them. The appended API endpoint implies path parameter usage for 'id', but this is already clear from the schema.

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 category' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, and does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_image_categories' or 'show_image'. The appended API endpoint '[Project Management/Photos] GET /rest/v1.0/image_categories/{id}' provides technical details but does not clarify the purpose in user-friendly terms.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_image_categories' (for listing categories) or 'show_image' (for viewing individual images), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a specific project context. Without any usage context, the agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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