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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show Property Damage' and a URL, failing to describe whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how errors are handled, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 title restatement and a URL path, which is efficient but lacks necessary explanatory content. While not verbose, it fails to provide adequate information, making it more of an under-specification issue than true conciseness.

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 (a tool to retrieve a specific property damage record), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output documentation, this description leaves too many gaps 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but it doesn't need to given the schema completeness.

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 Property Damage. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/property_damages/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Property Damage') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a URL path but doesn't clearly explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific property damage record). This is a tautology with minimal additional context.

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 doesn't mention any sibling tools (like 'list_property_damages' or 'retrieve_property_damage' from the sibling list) or specify prerequisites. Without usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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