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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/workflow_instances/{id}', implying a read-only HTTP operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Show Workflow Instance'), followed by endpoint details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the endpoint information could be considered redundant if the tool is well-annotated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what data is shown), pagination behavior (since 'page' and 'per_page' are optional), or error scenarios. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed.

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', 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'id' vs. 'company_id') or usage notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 Instance' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Workflow Instance'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view status) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_a_workflow_instance_company_v2_0' or 'list_workflow_instances', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 (e.g., needing a specific workflow instance ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_workflow_instances' for multiple instances), offering no usage direction.

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