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/company_base_url', implying a read-only HTTP request, but does not specify whether it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It fails to describe response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 tautological phrase followed by technical details in brackets. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, making it inefficient rather than effectively concise. The structure does not front-load actionable insights.

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 fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of company zones, configuration details) or how results are structured. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more context on output and usage is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 descriptions for 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. The description does not add any semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., default values, constraints like max 100). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor adds value.

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 'Check Company Zone' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what 'checking' entails (e.g., retrieve, list, verify) or what 'Company Zone' refers to (e.g., a configuration, list of companies, or zone data). The HTTP method and path hint at a read operation but do not clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 its role relative to sibling tools (e.g., other 'check' or 'list' tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from similar operations, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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