Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Show') and includes an HTTP method ('GET'), suggesting non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with required parameters.

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 repeats the tool name, includes domain context in brackets, and adds an HTTP endpoint, which may be redundant. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and could be more streamlined to focus on user-facing purpose.

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 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Sub Job' is in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination works with the 'id' parameter. For a read operation with specific inputs, 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the four parameters, including required ones ('id', 'project_id') and pagination options ('page', 'per_page').

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 Sub Job. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] GET /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Sub Job') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('Sub Job') and domain context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'), but lacks a clear action verb beyond 'Show' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sub_jobs' or 'create_sub_job'.

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, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_sub_jobs' for listing multiple sub-jobs or 'create_sub_job' for creation).

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