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 only states 'Show Project Region' and a URL, lacking details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a URL. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential information upfront, making it inefficient for agent understanding. The structure does not prioritize key details like purpose or usage.

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 the tool returns, how pagination works, or any error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description should compensate with more context, which it fails to do.

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 schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'ID of the Project Region'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the URL path hint, which aligns with the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Region' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to clarify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list data). While it includes a URL path hint, this does not compensate for the vague 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, context (e.g., admin access), or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_regions' or 'show_project'. Without such information, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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