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 only states 'Show Work Activity' and includes a URL path, but fails to describe key traits: whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 'Show Work Activity' and includes a URL path, but it lacks front-loaded critical information such as the tool's core function or key constraints. The URL adds some context but doesn't enhance clarity efficiently, making it adequately brief but not optimally structured for quick understanding.

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 tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Work Activity' means in this context, how results are returned (e.g., JSON structure), or handle pagination behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively despite the detailed input schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'id' as Work Activity ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate or detract from the existing documentation.

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 Work Activity' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Work Activity'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Work Activity' entails (e.g., details, logs, or metadata) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_work_activities' or 'show_workflow_activity_history', making it vague in context.

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 like authentication, differentiate from similar tools (e.g., 'list_work_activities' for listing multiple activities), or specify use cases such as retrieving a single work activity by ID, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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