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. It implies a read operation ('index' and 'GET'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal context beyond the API path, leaving key behaviors 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 with two parts: a tautological title restatement and an API path. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes space on redundant or technical details without adding value. A single sentence could better convey purpose, but the structure isn't front-loaded with actionable information.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the system, output format, or error handling. For a read operation with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it incomplete for practical 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 the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain filtering logic or default values). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 'Company Folder and File index. [Core/Documents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/documents' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name ('Company Folder and File index') without specifying the action (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve'), and the API path fragment adds technical detail but doesn't clarify purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'company_folders_and_files' or 'project_folder_and_file_index'.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or contextual usage. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for listing documents at a company level versus project level, 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.