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/specification_section_revisions/{id}' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe/non-destructive, nor does it describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist). The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence with the endpoint is somewhat technical and could be integrated more smoothly, but it doesn't waste space.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'show' returns (e.g., revision details, content, metadata), how pagination works with a single revision, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, more context on output and behavior 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Specification section revision ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between id and project_id or typical values for pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states 'Show Specification Section Revision' which indicates a retrieval/display action on a specification section revision resource. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieving details, metadata, or content) and doesn't clearly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'show_specification_set' or 'list_specification_section_revisions_for_a_specification' beyond the specific resource focus.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id and revision id), typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_specification_section_revisions_for_a_specification' for browsing versus this tool for detailed view. Usage is implied only by the action 'show'.

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