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 mentions 'GET' and a REST endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format is. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed 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 concise with two short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on technical details like the REST endpoint without adding value for tool selection. However, it is not verbose, so it scores above average for brevity despite its lack of substance.

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 project retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'project' entails in this context, the expected return values, or how pagination works. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (id, company_id, view, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'minimal' view in more detail. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 project. [Core/Portfolio] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'show_project' and adds minimal technical details. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond the obvious, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_a_single_project' or 'show_a_single_project' in the list. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity.

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 sibling tools like 'get_a_single_project' and 'show_a_single_project' present, there is no indication of differences in functionality, context, or prerequisites. This absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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