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 indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method and endpoint, leaving key operational details unspecified.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. There is no wasted text, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 item with required IDs and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., observation item details), error conditions, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page' when 'id' is specified. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 in the input schema (e.g., 'Observation Item ID' for 'id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between 'id' and 'project_id' or pagination behavior. 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 Observation Item. [Project Management/Observations] GET /rest/v1.0/observations/items/{id}' states the action ('Show') and resource ('Observation Item'), but it is vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details). It includes a category hint ('Project Management/Observations') and API endpoint, but does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_observation_items' or 'show_observation_item_pdf_url' beyond the URL path.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., needing a specific observation item ID), or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_observation_items' for listing multiple items or 'get_observation_item_pdf_url' for PDF retrieval. Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure.

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