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 indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but fails to describe response format, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. 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 brief but inefficiently structured—it repeats the tool name and includes an API endpoint that may not be necessary for agent understanding. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity, making it less helpful than a more informative single sentence would be.

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 inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Prime Change Order' is, what data is returned, or how pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') affect the response. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'ID of the Prime Change Order'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but 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 Prime Change Order. [Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/prime_change_orders/{id}' is tautological—it restates the tool name ('Show Prime Change Order') and adds a category label and API endpoint, but does not specify the action (e.g., retrieve details of a specific prime change order). It lacks a clear verb-resource distinction, making the purpose vague beyond the name.

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, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other prime change order tools like 'show_prime_change_order_batch' or 'list_all_prime_change_orders'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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