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 /rest/v1.0/requisitions/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)'), followed by category and API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the bracketed category could be integrated more smoothly. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) interact with the required ID. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice) ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as format examples or constraints beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)' and includes the API endpoint, which indicates it retrieves a specific requisition. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_v1_1' or 'detail_for_requisition_subcontractor_invoice', leaving ambiguity about its uniqueness. The addition of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides some context but is 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 prerequisites, such as needing a valid requisition ID, or compare it to similar tools like list or create operations. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for proper selection.

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