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', suggesting non-destructive behavior, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description lacks behavioral details like what data is returned (e.g., alert metadata, status) or pagination hints (though 'page' and 'per_page' parameters suggest paginated output).

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—two short phrases and an API endpoint—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the tool's name and category, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). The brevity is efficient but risks under-specification.

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 incident alert with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure), error cases, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. The API endpoint hints at context, but more detail is needed for the agent to use it 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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the endpoint path '/projects/{project_id}/incidents/alerts/{id}' implicitly reinforces that 'project_id' and 'id' are required. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 Incident Alert' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/alerts/{id}', which hints at retrieving an incident alert, but the purpose remains vague—it doesn't specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display, or fetch). Compared to sibling tools like 'list_incident_alerts' or 'show_incident', it lacks clear differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project or alert ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_incident_alerts' for listing multiple alerts or 'show_incident' for incident details. The agent must infer usage from the API endpoint alone, which is insufficient.

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