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 states 'GET /rest/v1.0/work_order_contracts/{id}', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological purpose, followed by bracketed context and an API endpoint. While concise, it wastes space on redundant information (restating the name) and could be more informative. The API endpoint detail is useful but could be integrated better.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving a specific resource with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'work order contract' entails, the expected return format, or how pagination works with a single ID. The agent must rely heavily on the input schema and external knowledge.

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 all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, the baseline score is 3 because the schema adequately covers parameter details, and the description does not need to compensate for gaps.

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 order contract' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view metadata) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_work_order_contracts' or 'show_work_order_contract_detail_line_item'. The bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides some context but is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'list_work_order_contracts' for listing multiple contracts), or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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