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 mentions a GET request, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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 sentence with an HTTP detail) but under-specified. It wastes no words, yet the front-loaded content ('Show RFI') is uninformative. While structured, it lacks essential explanatory value, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., RFI details, attachments), how pagination works with the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, or error handling. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output, more context is needed.

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 project', 'RFI ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). 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 RFI. [Project Management/RFI] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{id}' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name ('Show RFI') without specifying what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve details, display, fetch). The HTTP method and path provide some context but don't clarify the action beyond repeating the name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_rfis' or 'show_rfi_in_pdf_format'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific RFI ID), contrast with list operations (e.g., 'list_rfis' for multiple RFIs), or specify use cases (e.g., viewing a single RFI's details). Without this, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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