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 mentions a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is safe, idempotent, or has any side effects. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The legacy tag hints at potential deprecation but is not elaborated.

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 under-specified rather than concise. The first part 'Show task' is redundant, while the bracketed technical details add some value but are not front-loaded with actionable information. It avoids verbosity but fails to convey essential usage context efficiently.

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 of the tool ecosystem (many sibling tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination parameters interact with a task ID, or why both 'id' and 'project_id' are required. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the task', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'show_task_item', 'show_todo', 'show_work_logs'). The appended '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.0/tasks/{id}' provides some technical context but does not articulate the tool's purpose in plain language.

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. With numerous sibling tools like 'show_task_item', 'list_tasks', and 'get_project_tasks_v2_0_company', there is no indication of whether this tool retrieves a single task by ID, lists tasks, or serves another function. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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