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 implies a read operation ('Show'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns detailed or summary data, handles errors, or has rate limits. The HTTP method (GET) and endpoint hint at a safe operation, but this is not explicitly stated in the description text.

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, not truly concise. 'Show todo' is too vague, and the bracketed text adds clutter without improving clarity. It is front-loaded but lacks substance. A more informative single sentence would be more effective.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is inadequately documented. The agent must rely heavily on the input schema and sibling context to understand its function. For a read operation with required parameters, the description should at least clarify the scope and output expectations.

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%, so the schema fully documents the four parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate with additional context like explaining pagination behavior.

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 todo' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what resource is being shown (e.g., a specific todo item by ID) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_todos' or 'create_todo', which are present in the sibling list. The addition of '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.0/todos/{id}' provides some context but is not a clear purpose statement.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a todo ID), differentiate from list or search tools, or indicate any constraints. The agent must infer usage solely from the input schema and sibling tool names.

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