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 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/project_dates/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly confirm it's safe (non-destructive) or describe error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 parts: a tautological title and an API endpoint. However, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant information. While brief, it fails to structure information helpfully for an agent, making it minimally adequate but not efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Show Project Date' returns (e.g., date details, metadata) or handle the pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') mentioned in the schema. For a tool with 4 parameters and read operations, 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 input schema (e.g., 'ID of the Project Date', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents them. Baseline 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 Project Date' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to clarify what 'Project Date' refers to (e.g., a specific date field, schedule, or milestone). Compared to sibling tools like 'list_project_dates_v1_0' or 'creates_or_updates_project_date', it does not distinguish its purpose clearly.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_project_dates_v1_0' for listing multiple dates). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters, which is insufficient.

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