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 only states 'Show permission manifest' with an API endpoint, lacking disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what a 'permission manifest' entails. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient 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 with two parts: 'Show permission manifest.' and the API endpoint. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API endpoint adds some context but isn't integrated into a coherent explanation. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'permission manifest' is, the return format, or how to interpret results. The API endpoint hint provides minimal context, but for a tool with no output schema and significant parameters, more guidance is needed to make it actionable for an AI 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., project_id for project level, company_id for company level, pagination controls). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but it doesn't detract either.

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 permission manifest' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'show_permission_manifest'. It adds the API endpoint '[Company Admin/Users & Permissions] GET /rest/v1.0/settings/permissions', which hints at the resource but doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a list of permissions for a company or project). It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'get_permission_level_options' or 'lists_the_app_and_tool_level_permissions_for_the_user'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (company vs project level), or compare to sibling tools like 'get_permission_level_options'. The API endpoint hint suggests it's for Company Admin/Users & Permissions, but this is implicit and incomplete.

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