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 mentions 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what happens on invalid IDs. The description lacks essential behavioral details needed for safe and effective use, especially for a tool with required parameters.

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 tautological purpose statement and endpoint details. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part adds little value. The structure is efficient, but could be improved by replacing the tautology with actionable information. No wasted sentences, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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, 3 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a read operation with multiple required IDs, more context is needed to ensure correct usage, especially without structured output documentation.

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., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., why 'id', 'project_id', and 'contract_id' are all required).

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 Potential Change Orders' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Change Orders]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/potential_change_orders/{id}', which hints at domain and HTTP method, but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific potential change order by ID). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_potential_change_orders' or 'show_potential_change_order_line_item'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring specific IDs, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'list_potential_change_orders' (which might list multiple) or 'show_potential_change_order_line_item' (which focuses on line items). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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