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 states 'Show' (implying a read operation) and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it's non-destructive. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context (e.g., the endpoint path) but is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 and front-loaded: 'Show Prime Contract line item.' The additional API endpoint information is relevant but could be more integrated. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' is slightly extraneous.

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 (a retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error cases, and how to interpret the parameters (e.g., why project_id is required). The API endpoint hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents the five parameters (prime_contract_id, id, project_id, page, per_page). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between IDs or pagination usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show Prime Contract line item.' It specifies the verb ('Show') and resource ('Prime Contract line item'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_prime_contract_line_items'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 minimal usage guidance. It includes the API endpoint path, which implies it's for retrieving a specific line item by IDs, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing line items or other retrieval tools. No explicit when/when-not or alternative references are provided.

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