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') and includes an API endpoint with 'GET', implying it's likely safe and non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains (e.g., structured data, pagination). The description adds minimal context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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—three short phrases with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Show RFQ Response'), followed by contextual hints. However, the structure could be improved by integrating the bracketed note and API endpoint more clearly, and it lacks complete sentences, which might reduce readability.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., RFQ response details, attachments), behavioral expectations, or error handling. For a tool with multiple required 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%, so the schema fully documents the six parameters (e.g., rfq_id, id, project_id, contract_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that rfq_id and id are required to identify a specific response) or usage hints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Response' states the action (show) and resource (RFQ Response), but it's vague—it doesn't specify what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view content). It includes a bracketed hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and an API endpoint, which adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'show_rfq', 'show_rfq_quote'), leaving ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating an RFQ response), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'show_rfq' or 'list_rfq_responses'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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