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 implies a read operation via 'GET' and 'Show', suggesting it's non-destructive, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The endpoint format hints at an ID parameter, but behavioral traits like response format or pagination are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 purpose and an endpoint reference. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information; the endpoint detail is buried and could be structured better. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies, making it minimally adequate rather than efficient.

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 a read operation with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication needs, and how pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') interact with a single-ID endpoint. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 in the schema (e.g., 'id' as 'The Tax Code ID', 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint hint '{id}', so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Tax Code' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Tax]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/tax_codes/{id}', which hints at retrieving a tax code by ID, but the purpose is vague and lacks a clear verb-resource distinction compared to siblings like 'list_tax_codes' or 'create_tax_code'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate it from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_tax_codes' for listing multiple tax codes). 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.