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 states 'GET /rest/v1.0/purchase_order_contracts/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, which suggests safe retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Show' returns (e.g., full contract data, paginated results). The description adds minimal context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Show Purchase Order Contract'), and the second sentence adds technical context without redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage guidelines.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving a specific purchase order contract with 4 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., needing project access). The API endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for full agent understanding in this context.

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., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, not explaining relationships like why both 'id' and 'project_id' are required. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Purchase Order Contract' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Purchase Order Contract'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_purchase_order_contracts' or 'show_purchase_order_contract_detail_line_item', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 mentions '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' as context, but this is generic and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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