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 hints at a read operation via 'GET' and 'Show,' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it returns paginated data (given the page/per_page parameters), error conditions, or response format. The description is insufficient for a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes an HTTP path that may be extraneous. While brief, it lacks effective communication of purpose or usage, making it inefficient despite its length.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page), or how to interpret the instruction data. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective 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 project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 Instruction. [Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/instructions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Instruction') and includes an HTTP method and path, but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve a specific instruction by ID within a project'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a read operation, but the purpose remains 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 any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools for comparison (e.g., list_instructions_on_a_project). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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