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 only states the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (e.g., no side effects), what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The '(Legacy)' tag hints at deprecated functionality but isn't explained. Without annotations, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with potential project management implications.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint, but it's slightly redundant as it repeats the name. The single sentence efficiently conveys the category and HTTP method, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from technical details, though its brevity is a strength.

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 of project management tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a lookahead is, what data it returns, or how it fits into the broader system. The '(Legacy)' tag adds confusion without context. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential scheduling significance, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between project_id and id or the purpose of pagination for a lookahead. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 states the tool name 'Show Lookahead' and includes a category '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookaheads/{id}'. This indicates it retrieves a lookahead (likely a schedule view) for a project, but it's vague about what a 'lookahead' entails (e.g., is it a report, a task list, a timeline?). It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'list_lookaheads' or 'get_look_ahead_data', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 doesn't mention when to use 'show_lookahead' (which retrieves a specific lookahead by ID) compared to 'list_lookaheads' (which might list multiple) or 'get_look_ahead_data' (which could be a broader data fetch). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint structure alone.

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