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 mentions 'GET' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name. However, it includes an API endpoint that may be redundant for an AI agent. The structure is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, lacks usage guidelines, and omits behavioral details. For a read operation with filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint path '{id}'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional 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 Folder. [Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/folders/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Project Folder') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes an API endpoint but doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves folder details with optional filtering). This is tautological with minimal added value.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or contextual usage scenarios. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'project_folder_and_file_index'), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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