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 'Show project file version' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only fetch operation. However, it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data (especially since there is no output schema). The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but this is insufficient for full transparency.

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—two short phrases—and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API endpoint detail, while potentially useful, is presented without clear integration into the description's flow. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured to separate functional intent from technical implementation.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'showing' a file version entails (e.g., metadata, content, download link) or the behavioral context needed for safe invocation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance on usage and expected results.

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 descriptions for all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context.

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 version' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It lacks a specific verb and resource clarity beyond the name, and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_project_file' or 'show_company_file_version'). While it includes an API endpoint hint ('[Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/file_versions/{id}'), this is technical detail rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 a project ID and file version ID), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'show_project_file' or 'show_company_file_version' for context. Usage is implied only through the endpoint structure, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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