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 implies a read-only 'GET' operation via the API endpoint, suggesting it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state this or cover other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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 tautological statement and an API endpoint. While brief, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure isn't front-loaded with key details, and the endpoint inclusion, though potentially useful, doesn't compensate for the lack of meaningful description. It's minimal but not optimally structured.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'project insurance' entails, the return format, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool use, leaving 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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'view' enum options or pagination behavior. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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 insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful detail. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, failing to distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'show_project_insurance' vs. 'list_project_insurances'). The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/insurances/{id}' hints at a retrieval operation but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list_project_insurances' for comparison. The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the tool name.

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