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 implies a read-only 'show' operation via GET, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns full or partial data. The mention of an HTTP endpoint adds some context, but lacks critical details for safe and effective use.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but includes extraneous details like the HTTP endpoint and category in brackets, which may not aid the AI agent. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured to emphasize key usage aspects.

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 of a prime contract retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what data is returned, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with four parameters and likely detailed output, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the Prime Contract'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Contract. [Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] GET /rest/v1.0/prime_contract/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Prime Contract') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP endpoint). It does not specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_all_prime_contracts' or 'show_prime_contract_summary_v2_0', making it vague and tautological.

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 (e.g., needing a specific prime contract ID), compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_prime_contracts' for listing vs. this for details), or indicate any constraints. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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