Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a GET operation, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 not optimally structured: it front-loads the tool name redundantly, includes a category label and API endpoint, but lacks a clear, standalone explanation. It's concise but could be more informative without adding length.

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 simple read operation with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'showing' a unit of measure entails (e.g., returning fields like name, abbreviation), expected output, or error cases. The API endpoint hint is insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between company_id and id). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 Unit of Measure. [Construction Financials/Units of Measure] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/uoms/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Unit of Measure') and adds a category label and API endpoint, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific unit of measure by ID). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a 'show' operation vs. list/create/update, but the purpose remains vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_units_of_measure' (a sibling tool) or 'get_units_of_measure' (another sibling). The description includes an API path hinting at retrieval by ID, but no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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