Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read operation ('Show') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a valid meeting ID. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema suggests list-like behavior, but the description doesn't explain this inconsistency with a single-meeting retrieval tool.

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 inefficient. 'Show meeting' wastes space on tautology, while the bracketed category and endpoint information could be better integrated. It's front-loaded with the tautological phrase rather than useful information. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and stays focused on the tool's technical identity.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving a single meeting), the description is incomplete. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't explain what information the tool returns. The presence of pagination parameters in the schema creates confusion that the description doesn't resolve. For a read operation with no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format and behavioral expectations.

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 clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain why pagination parameters exist for what appears to be a single-meeting retrieval tool, or clarify the relationship between 'id' and 'project_id'. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 meeting' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_meeting_v1_1' or 'list_meetings'. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Meetings] GET /rest/v1.0/meetings/{id}' provides some technical context but doesn't clarify the 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'show_meeting_v1_1' (which appears to be a versioned variant) or 'list_meetings' (which likely returns multiple meetings). There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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