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 states 'Show Submittal' and includes a GET path, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the path, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 three elements: a tautological phrase, a category, and a path. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part 'Show Submittal' adds little value. The structure is efficient but lacks informative content, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'submittal' is, what data is returned, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to aid the agent, but it does not, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between project_id and id, or clarify pagination usage). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Submittals]' and a path 'GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}', which hints at retrieving a submittal, but lacks a specific verb and resource definition. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_submittal_project' or 'show_submittal_v1_0'.

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 mentions a path with parameters, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it leaves the agent to infer usage from context.

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