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 indicates a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes a path with placeholders, but it does not disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response contains (e.g., JSON structure). The description is minimal and lacks necessary behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words, consisting of a brief phrase and technical details. It is front-loaded with the tool name and context. However, it is overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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 complexity (retrieving a specific incident detail with optional pagination parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, error conditions, or how parameters like incident_id, page, and per_page interact with the required project_id and id. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 (project_id, id, incident_id, page, per_page) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it only repeats path placeholders. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details.

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 Near Miss. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Near Miss') and adds an HTTP method and path, but it lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve details of a specific near-miss incident in a project'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a read operation, but the purpose remains 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 mentions 'Project Management/Incidents' context but does not specify prerequisites, when to choose this over list_near_misses or other incident-related tools, or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the path structure but not explicitly stated.

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