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. The GET endpoint implies a read operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., a list of permissions objects). It lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tool name and category. However, it wastes space on the exact endpoint path ('GET /rest/v1.0/...') which adds little value for an AI agent. The single sentence is efficient but under-specified.

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 vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'permissions' means in this context, what the return format is, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters and likely returning a list of permission objects, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Page number for pagination', 'Items per page (max 100)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Document Markup Permissions' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a GET endpoint, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list permissions, check access). Compared to sibling tools like 'list_permission_templates' or 'get_permission_level_options', it's unclear whether this retrieves, modifies, or verifies permissions.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_permission_templates', 'get_permission_level_options'). An agent would have no idea when this specific permissions tool is appropriate.

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