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. It implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated data (given 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or has rate limits. The mention of '(Legacy)' hints at deprecation but is unclear. Without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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. It includes redundant elements like the tool name and HTTP method, while missing key details. The structure is minimal, but it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but under-specifies.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, or return values. For a tool that likely retrieves schedule data, this leaves the agent without sufficient guidance to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'project_id' and 'id' or the purpose of pagination. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 Lookahead. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookaheads/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Lookahead') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('lookaheads') and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb or specific action (e.g., 'retrieve details of a specific lookahead schedule'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_lookaheads_v1_1' or 'create_lookahead_v1_1', making it vague.

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 (e.g., needing a specific lookahead ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_lookaheads_v1_1' for listing multiple lookaheads). This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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