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 only indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not specify whether it retrieves a single configuration, lists configurations, or details about pagination, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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 single sentence fragment that includes the tool name, category, and endpoint, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to convey critical information, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'specification_configuration' entails, the return format, or how pagination works. For a tool that likely retrieves configuration data, the description should provide more context about the resource and expected behavior, which is lacking here.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for company_id, project_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Configuration of Specifications tool. [Project Management/Specifications] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/specification_configuration' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Configuration of Specifications tool') without specifying the action (e.g., retrieve, list, update). The category '[Project Management/Specifications]' and HTTP method 'GET' provide some context, but the purpose is not clearly articulated as a specific verb+resource combination, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_specification_configurations_v2_1', 'update_specification_configurations_v2_1'), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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