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 implies a read operation ('Show') and includes 'GET' in the bracketed text, suggesting it is non-destructive. However, it does not clarify required permissions (Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration), potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 brief but inefficiently structured. 'Show link' is redundant, and the bracketed technical details are appended without integration into a coherent sentence. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on tautological phrasing instead of providing actionable information.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with four parameters. It fails to explain what 'show' returns (e.g., link details, metadata) or the significance of the administrative scope hint. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should compensate with more context about the expected response and usage constraints.

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 input schema (e.g., 'Link ID', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents all four parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 link' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what resource is being shown (e.g., a hyperlink, document link, or project link) or what action 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display metadata). The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration] GET /rest/v1.0/links/{id}' provides some technical context but is not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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_links' or 'create_link') or contextual prerequisites. The bracketed text hints at administrative scope but does not explicitly state usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons.

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