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 implies a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it returns paginated data (despite having pagination parameters). The technical endpoint hint is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (one sentence) but poorly structured. It front-loads the tautological name, followed by cryptic endpoint details. While brief, it wastes space on unhelpful technical information rather than explaining purpose or usage, reducing its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral expectations, or return format. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not compensate for missing context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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., 'ID of the Project Date', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters, including the required 'id' and 'project_id'. 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 'Show Project Date. [Core/Project] GET /rest/v1.0/project_dates/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Show Project Date') and adds technical endpoint details. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific project date record) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_project_dates_v1_0_2' or 'show_project_date_v1_0'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project date ID), differentiate from list operations, or reference sibling tools. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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