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 Location' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral information unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of being underspecified. While it is short, it lacks essential information, making it inefficient rather than truly concise. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but does not improve clarity for an AI agent.

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' entails, the format of returned data, or any pagination behavior implied by the parameters. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output, this is inadequate.

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 in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters like 'page' or 'per_page', but the schema adequately covers them, meeting the baseline score.

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 Location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making it unclear what exactly is being shown (e.g., details, list, metadata). Compared to sibling tools like 'list_project_locations' or 'show_location', it fails to distinguish 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'list_project_locations' or 'show_location', leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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