Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when IDs are invalid. The description is purely technical without 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 extremely concise - just two parts: a brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' adds minimal value and could be more integrated into the purpose statement.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Prime Contract' is in this context, what data is returned, or how this differs from other prime contract tools. The technical endpoint reference doesn't compensate for missing operational context.

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 already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between company_id, project_id, and prime_contract_id, or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states 'Show Prime Contract' which indicates a retrieval/display action on a specific resource type. It includes the API endpoint path, which provides technical context. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other 'show' or 'get' tools in the sibling list (like 'show_prime_contract' or 'show_prime_contract_summary_v2_0'), leaving the scope and differentiation unclear.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to prime contracts (including other 'show' variants and list operations), there's no indication of when this specific endpoint is appropriate versus other prime contract retrieval methods.

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