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 implies a read-only 'GET' operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns full details or a summary. The mention of 'GET' is minimal and lacks depth, failing to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name, but it includes unnecessary API endpoint details ('GET /rest/v1.0/punch_items/{id}') that do not aid the agent. It avoids redundancy beyond the name restatement and is structured in a single line, though it could be more informative without sacrificing 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 of a retrieval tool with five parameters (including pagination and deletion flags), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage and results.

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 five parameters (id, project_id, include_deleted, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships (e.g., id must belong to project_id) or usage notes. 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 Punch Item. [Project Management/Punch List] GET /rest/v1.0/punch_items/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Punch Item') and adds minimal context with a category and API endpoint. It does not specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_punch_items' or 'show_punch_item_v1.1', making it vague and tautological.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific punch item ID), contrast with list operations, or reference sibling tools like 'list_punch_items' for bulk retrieval, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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