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/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{rfi_id}/replies/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with two parts: 'Show RFI Reply' and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose, though the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured API info. No wasted sentences, but it could be more structured with usage hints.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters (with 3 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., reply details, attachments), error conditions, or behavioral context like pagination usage. For a read operation with multiple IDs and pagination, more completeness 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 descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't need to.

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 Reply' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('RFI Reply'), but it's vague about what 'Show' means—does it retrieve details, display a summary, or something else? It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_rfi' or 'list_rfi_replies', leaving ambiguity in its specific function.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id, rfi_id, id) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_rfi_replies' or 'show_rfi', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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