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 states 'Show' (implying a read-only operation) but does not confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, or output format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read action, leaving significant gaps 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the endpoint path, which is useful but could be considered extraneous. The single sentence is efficient, though the bracketed category adds minor clutter without significant value.

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 lacks details on what a 'Prime Contract Summary' contains, how pagination works with page/per_page, or the expected return structure. For a read operation with multiple IDs and pagination, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between company_id, project_id, and contract_id). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Summary' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It specifies the resource ('Prime Contract Summary') but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools. The bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' and endpoint path provide some context but do not clarify the tool's distinct purpose.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, with no explicit instructions.

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