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. It implies a read-only operation via 'GET' but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral details like pagination handling (implied by page/per_page parameters) or response format. It is minimally informative.

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—two brief phrases and a URL. It is front-loaded with the action ('Show Material') but wastes space on a tautological restatement. The URL adds technical context efficiently. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details).

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, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'show' returns (e.g., material details), how pagination works, or error handling. For a read operation with pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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., 'ID of the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3. The description does not explain the relationship between 'id' and 'project_id' or clarify pagination behavior.

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 Material. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/materials/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Material') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('Material') and HTTP method (GET) but is vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list items). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also 'show' or 'list' operations. This is a tautology with slight elaboration.

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 project and material IDs), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., list_materials). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine applicability.

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