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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. The API endpoint format suggests path parameters, but behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters) are not addressed.

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. It repeats the tool name, adds a category tag, and includes the API endpoint, which is somewhat redundant with the input schema. While not verbose, it fails to front-load critical information like purpose or usage, making it less helpful for quick understanding.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'show' returns (e.g., recipient details), how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more behavioral and output context, which it lacks.

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 company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the endpoint path in the description ('/rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/severity_levels/{severity_level_id}/alert_recipients/{id}') visually reinforces parameter usage. Since schema coverage is high, 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 Recipient' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, failing to clearly distinguish what 'show' means in this context (e.g., retrieve details, list, or display). While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and API endpoint, these do not clarify the core purpose beyond the name.

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 prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'list_incident_alert_recipients' or 'delete_incident_alert_recipient' from the sibling list). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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