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. The description includes 'GET' and an endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. It lacks details on output format, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest pagination), or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tautological statement and an endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information; the first part 'Show Punch Assignment' adds little value. The endpoint provides technical context but could be structured better. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but misses an opportunity to be more informative 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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Punch Assignment' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior, especially with no output schema to clarify return values.

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 all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema already provides good coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Punch Assignment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/punch_item_assignments/{id}', which hints at retrieving a specific punch item assignment, but it lacks a specific verb and resource definition. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_punch_item' or 'list_punch_items', leaving the purpose vague.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to punch items (e.g., 'show_punch_item', 'list_punch_items'), the absence of usage guidelines makes it difficult for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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