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 implies a read operation via 'GET' and 'Show', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns paginated data (given the page/per_page parameters). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name, but includes redundant information (repeating 'Show Incident') and an HTTP endpoint that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is concise but could be more structured to emphasize purpose over technical details.

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 description that lacks behavioral and usage details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how to handle pagination, leaving significant gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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 fully documents the four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Incident. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Incident') and adds a category and HTTP endpoint, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific incident). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a read operation, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition.

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 (e.g., list_incidents for multiple incidents). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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