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' in the endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description lacks behavioral details 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 and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint, avoiding unnecessary details. It consists of a single sentence with the API path, which is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 read operation with 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a WBS segment is, the return format, or error conditions. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, more context is needed for 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra 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 states the tool 'Show Project WBS Segment' and includes the API endpoint, which clarifies it retrieves a specific segment of a Work Breakdown Structure. However, it lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_wbs_segments' or 'show_project_wbs_codes', making it vague in comparison.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage instructions. Sibling tools include many list/show variants, but no differentiation is made.

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