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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which implies administrative permissions, but does not explicitly state required access levels, whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, or rate limits. The HTTP method 'GET' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the description.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by access context and an API endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential information about the tool's purpose, making it inefficient in guiding the agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Trade' is in this context, what data is returned, or how pagination parameters (page, per_page) affect results. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation and its results.

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 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 (there are none).

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 Trade' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'show_a_bid_within_a_company', 'show_checklist', etc.). While the bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at access context, it does not clarify what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately among the hundreds of sibling tools listed.

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