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 implies a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'Show', suggesting safe retrieval, but does not explicitly state this or disclose other behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination handling (despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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—it consists of a tautological phrase followed by bracketed category and HTTP details. While front-loaded with the tool's name, it wastes space on redundant information and lacks structured explanation of purpose or usage. It is brief but not effectively informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only restates the name and adds HTTP details, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Show Project Upload' returns (e.g., upload metadata, file details), behavioral aspects, or error handling. For a tool with four parameters and likely complex output, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Upload UUID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate or add value.

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 with minimal clarification. It adds the category '[Core/File Access & Storage]' and HTTP method 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/uploads/{uuid}', which hints at retrieving upload data, but lacks a specific verb-resource statement (e.g., 'Retrieve details of a specific file upload in a project'). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_project_upload' (without version) or other 'show_' tools.

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 (e.g., needing project and upload IDs), context for use (e.g., after an upload is created), or sibling tools like 'list_project_uploads' for browsing multiple uploads. The agent must infer usage from the parameters alone.

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