Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Show project vendor' with an API endpoint, lacking disclosure on behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained).

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 brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than overly verbose.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error conditions, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page'. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'project_id', 'id', 'view', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting with clear descriptions and enum values for 'view'.

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 vendor' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_project_vendor_v1_1' or 'list_project_vendors', making it vague about what exactly is being retrieved (e.g., details vs. list).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'list_project_vendors' for broader queries or 'show_project_vendor_v1_1' for version differences.

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