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 states 'Show RFQ Quote' and includes an HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. The API endpoint suggests it's a REST call, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, adds a category in brackets, and includes the API endpoint—which could be verbose for an agent. However, it avoids unnecessary fluff. A more front-loaded, purpose-driven sentence would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 6 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what an 'RFQ Quote' is in this context, the expected return format, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool with multiple IDs and pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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., 'RFQ ID', 'RFQ Quote ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 Quote. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{rfq_id}/quotes/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show RFQ Quote') without adding specificity. It includes a category hint and API endpoint, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation (e.g., 'Retrieve details for a specific quote within an RFQ'). This is tautological and minimally informative.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'list_rfq_quotes' for listing quotes or 'create_rfq_quote' for creation), prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It offers no usage instructions beyond the implied retrieval action.

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