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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources/{id}' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when resources aren't found. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema suggests paginated results, but this isn't explained in the description.

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 technically concise with only two brief phrases, but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The structure is poor - the bracketed domain context appears mid-sentence rather than being properly integrated. While there's no wasted text, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what type of resource is being retrieved (schedule resource in project management), what the response format looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. The HTTP endpoint information is useful but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information needed for effective tool 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making it unclear what 'resource' refers to in this project management context. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the actual operation.

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. With many sibling tools available (including other 'show_' tools like show_resource_assignment_v1_1), there's no indication of what distinguishes this particular resource retrieval operation or when it should be selected over other options.

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