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 'GET' in the API path, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, failing to adequately inform the agent about behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation support.

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 tautological phrase and an API reference. While brief, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API path adds some value but does not compensate for the lack of substantive guidance. It is front-loaded but fails to provide necessary context, making it minimally adequate in structure but not helpful.

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, 2 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'task item' is, what data is returned, or how pagination works with the 'id' and 'project_id' requirements. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this description insufficient for proper tool invocation.

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., 'Task Item ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it lacks parameter-specific details. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, display metadata) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_task' or 'list_task_items', which are also present in the sibling list. While the API path '[Core/Tasks] GET /rest/v1.0/task_items/{id}' provides some context, the description itself is vague and redundant.

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. There are many sibling tools (e.g., 'show_task', 'list_task_items', 'create_task_item') that handle related operations, but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection. 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.