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', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether it returns paginated data (given 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 brief purpose statement and technical details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating the action (e.g., 'Retrieve details of a specific submittal'). The structure is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error conditions. For a tool that retrieves specific data with pagination support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it inadequate for informed 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 of Submittal'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Submittal' restates the tool name, providing minimal clarity. It adds '[Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.0/submittal_logs/{id}', which indicates the resource (submittal) and HTTP method, but lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_submittal_project' or 'show_submittal_v1_1', leaving ambiguity.

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 includes a category '[Project Management/Submittals]' but does not specify prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_submittals' for multiple items). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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