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. The description only includes the API endpoint and a vague title, failing to disclose whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like. It lacks essential behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a title, a category tag, and an API path. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient in conveying needed context.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to be useful.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'ids' array contains or how pagination works). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Change History. [Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/change_history' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Change History') without specifying what it actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, or view change history). The API path hints at timesheet change history, but the purpose is not clearly articulated with a specific verb and resource.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools that might be relevant. Without usage guidelines, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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