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 read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the implied HTTP method.

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, fitting into a single sentence that includes the action, resource, and endpoint. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating it retrieves details for a specific payment application, rather than just 'Show'.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., invoice details, status, line items) or any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for the 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 already documents all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as why both id and project_id are required or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the tool shows a payment application (owner invoice) and includes the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which clarifies it's a retrieval operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_payment_applications_owner_invoices_for_a_project', making the purpose somewhat 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' as context but doesn't explain prerequisites, when to use this specific GET endpoint over listing tools, or any constraints. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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