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. 'Show meeting' implies a read-only fetch operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). The HTTP method (GET) hints at safety, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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 but under-specified. 'Show meeting' is too brief, while the bracketed technical details add clutter without improving clarity. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with four parameters and potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the URL path in brackets ('/rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings/{id}') reinforces that project_id and id are path parameters. This aligns with the schema, maintaining the baseline.

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 restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'show_meeting' or 'list_meetings'. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Meetings] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings/{id}' provides technical context but does not clarify the tool's purpose in plain language.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_meetings', 'create_meeting_v1_1') or specify scenarios for retrieval versus listing. Without usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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