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 via 'GET' but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether it's safe (non-destructive), what authentication is needed, rate limits, or the structure of returned data. The description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loads the tautological name, then adds a domain tag and HTTP endpoint. While concise, it wastes space on obvious elements (name, HTTP method) instead of providing actionable guidance, making it under-informative rather than optimally concise.

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 (6 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how parameters like 'view' affect output. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more behavioral and semantic context, which it does not.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying an 'id' path parameter via the URL snippet. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles or interactions.

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 Standard Cost Code. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] GET /rest/v1.0/standard_cost_codes/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Standard Cost Code') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a domain context tag and HTTP method, but lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_standard_cost_codes' or 'show_standard_cost_code_list'.

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 prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_standard_cost_codes' or 'show_standard_cost_code_list'), leaving the agent without usage direction.

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