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' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects like logging. It misses details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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, stating the tool's purpose in the first phrase. The API endpoint adds technical context without verbosity. However, it could be more structured by separating functional intent from implementation details, but it avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'show' returns—whether it's a single reference object, a list, or paginated data—nor does it cover error cases or authentication. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more context on output and behavior is needed.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination via 'page' and 'per_page' in the endpoint, but it doesn't explain their usage or defaults. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 Action Plan Template Reference' restates the tool name and adds a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and API endpoint, but it's vague about what 'show' entails—whether it's retrieving details, listing items, or displaying a reference. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'list_project_action_plan_template_references' or 'show_project_action_plan_template', leaving the purpose ambiguous beyond basic retrieval.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project and template reference ID, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_project_action_plan_template_references' for broader listings. Without usage instructions, the agent must infer from parameters alone.

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