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 /rest/v1.0/workflow_activity_histories/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how pagination works with 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. For a read operation with multiple inputs, more context is needed for effective use.

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 (e.g., 'ID', 'Workflow Instance ID', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Workflow Activity History' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Workflow Activity History'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_activity_histories' or 'get_workflow_instance_history_company_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_workflow_activity_histories'), leaving 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.