Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show' and includes a REST endpoint, but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it returns a single severity level or paginated results, or any error conditions. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but explicit safety or behavioral traits are missing.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes the tool name, a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]', and a REST endpoint, which is somewhat structured but lacks explanatory value. The endpoint detail is useful for debugging but doesn't aid the agent in tool selection.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It fails to explain the return format (e.g., severity level details), the role of optional pagination parameters, or how this differs from listing severity levels. The endpoint hint adds some context but not enough for effective agent use.

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., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies 'id' is required for a specific severity level. 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 Severity Level' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond what's implied by the name, failing to distinguish its purpose from sibling tools or clarify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list options).

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., after listing severity levels), or sibling tools like 'list_incident_severity_levels', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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