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 states 'Show location' and includes a REST endpoint, implying a read-only fetch operation. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when the location ID doesn't exist. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 not front-loaded with essential information. 'Show location' is vague, and the REST endpoint detail, while concise, does not clarify the tool's purpose for an AI agent. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies rather than being optimally concise.

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, 2 required) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page', or the relationship between 'id' and 'project_id'. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more contextual information is needed.

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 all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'show_location' vs. 'list_locations'). The inclusion of '[Core/Project] GET /rest/v1.0/locations/{id}' provides technical context but does not articulate the tool's functional 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 prerequisites, context, or distinctions from sibling tools like 'list_locations' or 'show_project_location'. Without any usage instructions, the 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.