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 'View Bid Form' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') hints at paginated results, but the description doesn't explain this behavior or return format.

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 'View Bid Form' (tautological) and appends a bracketed context '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and API endpoint, which is useful for developers but not for an AI agent. The information is compact but lacks purposeful sentences that guide usage; it feels more like a code comment than an agent-facing description.

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 5 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'view' returns (e.g., bid form details, attachments, or a paginated list), behavioral traits like pagination handling, or error scenarios. The context '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' is vague and doesn't aid the agent. For a read operation with pagination, more completeness 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 all parameters documented in the schema (company_id, bid_id, bid_form_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies the IDs are required for routing. Since the schema already fully describes parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'View Bid Form' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'view_bid_form_company' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the API endpoint path, which indicates a GET operation, but doesn't clarify what 'view' entails (e.g., retrieve details, list items, or display a form). It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'view_bid_form_project', which appears to serve a similar purpose for projects rather than companies.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific IDs), context (e.g., preconstruction/bid management as hinted in brackets), or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'view_bid_form_project'. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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