Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('View'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in schema). The API path suggests a GET request, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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. However, it includes redundant API endpoint details that don't add value for tool selection. The single sentence is efficient but could be more informative.

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, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how pagination works. For a tool with 5 parameters and hierarchical IDs, 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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the API path hinting at hierarchical IDs (project_id, bid_package_id, bid_form_id). It doesn't explain optional pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') or their interaction.

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 states the action ('View') and resource ('Bid Form'), but is vague about scope and output. It mentions the API endpoint but doesn't clarify what 'viewing' entails (e.g., retrieving details, metadata, or full form). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'view_bid_form_company' or 'index_bid_forms'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and API path, but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or differences from similar tools (e.g., 'view_bid_form_company' for company-level vs. project-level).

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