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. It implies a read operation ('Show', 'GET'), but doesn't specify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination details). 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 (one line) but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes endpoint details that may not be necessary for an AI agent. While brief, it could be more informative by replacing the endpoint with a clearer purpose statement.

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 (a read operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') affect results. For a tool with no output schema, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'The ID of the Response'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately covers all four parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Response. [Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses/{id}' restates the tool name 'show_response' and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_checklist_item_response', 'list_responses') beyond the endpoint path, making it vague about what exactly is being shown.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific response ID), context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_responses' or 'show_checklist_item_response'. This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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