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 Upload' and includes an endpoint path, which implies a read operation but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'show' entails (e.g., returns metadata, file content, or paginated results). The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief phrase and endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though that purpose is vague. The structure is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal clarity.

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 of a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., upload metadata, file details, or a list), how pagination works, or error handling. For a tool that likely retrieves specific upload data, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Upload UUID', pagination details). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 Upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to distinguish what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, list files) or what a 'Project Upload' entails. While the bracketed '[Core/File Access & Storage]' and endpoint path provide some context, they don't sufficiently articulate the tool's purpose beyond repeating its 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 for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_project_upload_v1_1' or other file/upload-related tools in the list). Without such guidance, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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