Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Show RFI in PDF format' implies a read-only operation generating a PDF, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's a synchronous or asynchronous operation, or what happens with pagination parameters. The HTTP method (GET) is mentioned but not explained in terms of agent usage.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The second provides technical context (endpoint path) which could be useful. However, the technical endpoint information doesn't add meaningful value for an AI agent that works through the MCP interface rather than direct HTTP calls.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (PDF content? URL? status?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'only_official' interacts with pagination) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 in PDF format' clearly states the action (show) and resource (RFI) with output format (PDF). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_rfi' or 'show_submittal_in_pdf_format_v1_1', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specific tool unique.

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 (including other 'show' operations and PDF generation tools), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparison to similar tools like 'show_rfi' or 'show_submittal_in_pdf_format_v1_1'.

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