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 indicates a read operation ('Show' and 'GET'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description lacks details on what 'Show' entails—whether it returns full details, summary, or something else—leaving gaps 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 with two parts: a functional statement and the API endpoint. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. The schema provides parameter documentation, but without annotations or output schema, the agent must guess about safety, performance, and return values. It meets a basic threshold but leaves significant gaps.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the endpoint path, which implies 'project_id' and 'distribution_group_id' are required, but this is already clear from the schema. 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 Distribution Group' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Project Distribution Group'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_project_distribution_group_v1_0_2' or 'list_project_distribution_groups_v1_0', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific version. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but doesn't clarify functional uniqueness.

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 sibling tools like 'show_project_distribution_group_v1_0_2' or 'list_project_distribution_groups_v1_0', nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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