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 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns paginated data (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description is minimal and misses critical operational context.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and key details (HTTP method and path). It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative. The structure is straightforward, but it lacks any explanatory sentences that would enhance clarity.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or how to handle the optional 'incident_id', 'page', and 'per_page' parameters. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no structured output guidance, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Witness Statement' and includes the HTTP method (GET) and path, which indicates it retrieves a specific witness statement. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_witness_statements' or 'retrieve_recycled_witness_statement', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus others.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after listing witness statements), or distinctions from sibling tools like 'list_witness_statements' or 'show_witness_statement' in other contexts. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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