Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what the output format is. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema is not explained in the description, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 with two parts: a tautological statement and an endpoint path. However, it is not well-structured for clarity; the endpoint detail might be technical noise rather than helpful guidance. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies key information, making it less effective.

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 and read behavior. It fails to explain what an 'Item Response Set' is, what data is returned, or any error conditions. The endpoint path provides some context but is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 descriptions for all parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 Item Response Set. [Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/item/response_sets/{id}' is largely tautological, restating the tool name and adding an HTTP method and endpoint path. It does not clearly explain what an 'Item Response Set' is or what 'showing' it entails, making it vague for an AI agent. The domain hint in brackets is minimal context but insufficient for clear purpose.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_item_response_sets' or 'show_item_response_set_response' from the sibling list) or contextual prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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