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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('show') and includes a GET endpoint, suggesting it is likely non-destructive. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by bracketed category and endpoint details. While front-loaded, it lacks substantive content that earns its place—each element is minimal and could be more informative. The structure is clear but not optimally helpful.

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 (a read operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'rounding configuration' entails, the response structure, or behavioral nuances like pagination limits. The endpoint hint is useful, but overall, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective agent 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 descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain pagination defaults or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 rounding configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It specifies the resource ('rounding configuration') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'show' and does not differentiate from sibling tools. The bracketed category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/rounding_configuration' provide some technical context, but the core description is vague and redundant.

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. It mentions a category and endpoint but offers no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'create_rounding_configuration' or 'update_rounding_configuration'). The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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