Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show project File' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The endpoint hint suggests a REST API call, but behavioral details like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters) or version handling ('show_latest_version_only') are not explained, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads a tautological phrase ('Show project File') and appends technical endpoint details that may not aid an AI agent. While concise, it wastes space on redundant or low-value information (e.g., '[Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/files/{id}') instead of providing actionable guidance. The structure does not prioritize helpful content for tool selection.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's role in file management, expected outputs (e.g., file metadata or content), or how parameters like 'show_latest_version_only' affect behavior. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by detailing return values and operational context, but it does not, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the File', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., 'id' and 'project_id' are required together) or usage nuances. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing description supplementation.

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 File. [Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/files/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show project File' vs 'show_project_file') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve metadata, download content, view details). Compared to sibling tools like 'show_a_bid_within_a_company' or 'show_project_file_version', it does not differentiate its purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing file ID and project ID), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'project_folder_and_file_index' for listing files or 'show_project_file_version' for version-specific details. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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