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 mentions 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Show' entails (e.g., returns batch details, pagination behavior). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, consisting of a tautological phrase and API endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks essential information for effective tool use, making it more sparse than optimally concise. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving a specific batch with pagination parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return format, pagination usage, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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 Batch'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't degrade understanding.

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 Batch' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/prime_change_order_batches/{id}', which provides API context but doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific batch). It lacks a specific verb and resource distinction from siblings.

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., 'show_all_prime_change_order_batches' or 'show_prime_change_order'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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