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 mentions '[Core/Directory]' and a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), required permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description lacks behavioral 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 with two parts: a purpose statement and an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the API path adds technical detail that might be redundant if the agent understands the context. No wasted sentences, though it could be more structured for 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with pagination options, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Show' returns (e.g., a single insurance object or paginated list), how pagination works with the required 'id' parameter, or error conditions. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed.

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 the 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'id' is the insurance ID) or usage of 'view', 'page', and 'per_page'. Baseline 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 vendor insurance' states the action ('Show') and resource ('project vendor insurance'), but it's vague—it doesn't specify if it retrieves a single insurance record or a list, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_vendor_insurances' or 'show_project_insurance'. The HTTP method and path are included but don't clarify the purpose beyond the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'list_project_vendor_insurances' and 'show_project_insurance', but the description doesn't mention them or explain when this specific tool is appropriate (e.g., for a single insurance record by ID).

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