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', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The description lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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's name and category. However, it includes redundant information (restating the name) and an HTTP endpoint that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is efficient but could be more informative without adding length.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., punch item details), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 already documents all parameters (id, project_id, include_deleted, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it implies the endpoint uses a path parameter {id}. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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/v1.1/punch_items/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Punch Item') and adds a category tag and HTTP endpoint, but it does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific punch item by ID). It lacks a clear verb+resource action and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_punch_items' or 'show_punch_item' (without version).

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), differentiate from list operations, or reference sibling tools like 'list_punch_items' or 'show_punch_item' (without version). Usage is implied but not stated.

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