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 only states 'Show Specification Set' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it supports pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or the format of returned data. The description lacks essential transparency for safe invocation.

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 tautological title and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes space on repetition without adding value. While not verbose, it lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for quick understanding, placing it in the mediocre range.

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 (retrieving a specific resource with pagination), the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate by explaining behavior and output. It fails to do so, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool works, what it returns, and how to handle results. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 Specification Set' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category '[Project Management/Specifications]' and an API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_sets/{id}', but these do not clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specification set). The verb 'Show' is vague compared to more precise alternatives like 'Retrieve' or 'Get details of'.

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 does not mention any sibling tools (e.g., other specification-related tools in the list like 'list_specification_sets' or 'create_specification_set') or contextual prerequisites. Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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