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 hints at a read operation ('Show', GET) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what the output contains. The endpoint snippet adds minimal technical context but lacks operational details.

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: a purpose statement and an endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with clear value; the endpoint detail may be redundant. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies, making it minimally adequate rather than optimally structured.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what an RFQ is, the expected return format, or behavioral context. The endpoint hint is insufficient for a tool that likely returns detailed financial/commitment data.

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 input schema fully documents the 5 parameters (id, project_id, contract_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the 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 RFQ. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show RFQ') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (RFQ) and includes a technical endpoint, but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_rfqs' or 'show_rfq_quote'. The purpose is vague, leaning towards tautology.

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, context, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'list_rfqs' and 'show_rfq_quote', the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selection.

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