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 only states 'Show Payments Beneficiary' and includes a URL, but does not describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it returns paginated data (given the page/per_page parameters), or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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—it wastes space on the URL path and category tag '[Construction Financials/Payments]' without adding meaningful context. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks informative content. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity effectively to aid understanding.

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 complexity (a read operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving details of a single beneficiary), the return format, or how pagination works with a specific ID. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions for all parameters (company_id, payments_beneficiary_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the URL path hinting at required IDs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Payments Beneficiary. [Construction Financials/Payments] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/beneficiaries/{payments_beneficiary_id}' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds a URL path, but does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond 'show' (e.g., retrieve details of a specific beneficiary). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_payments_beneficiaries' or 'approve_payments_beneficiary'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific beneficiary ID, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_payments_beneficiaries' (which likely lists multiple beneficiaries). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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