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 mentions 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) and includes a URL path, but does not explicitly state whether this is safe, idempotent, or requires authentication. It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or response format. The description provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the HTTP method.

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 (one sentence with a URL) and front-loaded with the tool name. However, it wastes space by repeating the name and includes extraneous details like the full API path without clarifying their relevance. While not verbose, it lacks efficient communication of key information, making it minimally adequate but not exemplary.

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 complexity (a read operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what an 'injury' entails in this context, the expected return data, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results, but it does not.

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 project', 'Injury ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the URL path placeholders, which align with schema parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Injury. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/injuries/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Injury') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a URL path, which provides some context about the resource structure, but lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings (e.g., 'Retrieve details for a specific injury record within a project'). The purpose is vague 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 (e.g., needing an existing injury ID), exclusions, or sibling tools (like 'list_injuries' or 'show_incident'). Without any usage context, an 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.