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 'GET', indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns paginated data (though parameters like 'page' and 'per_page' suggest pagination). The description lacks details on what 'show' entails beyond the HTTP method, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a URL path. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though the URL could be considered technical clutter. There is no wasted text, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage hints). It efficiently conveys key information in a compact form.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a moderate parameter count (5) with full schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It indicates a read operation (via 'GET') and includes a URL, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational context. For a tool with no structured metadata beyond the input schema, the description provides basic context but leaves significant gaps, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'view' with enum values and default). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('project vendor'), providing a basic purpose. However, it is vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list information) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_project_vendor' or 'list_project_vendors', which might have similar functions. It minimally conveys the action but lacks specificity.

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 includes a URL path '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/vendors/{id}', which implies a REST API call to fetch a specific vendor by ID within a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing vendors or creating vendors), no prerequisites, and no context on sibling tools. The URL hints at usage but is not a clear guideline.

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