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 mentions 'Download' and 'export', implying a file generation or data retrieval operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it triggers asynchronous processing, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the output (e.g., file download vs. data stream). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with 6 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with the tool name, category, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Download RFIs List') and wastes no words. Every part of the description earns its place by providing essential 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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file, JSON, or async job ID), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool with significant parameterization and no structured output information, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective 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 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between filters, pagination, or table configuration. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the action ('Download') and resource ('RFIs List'), and includes the API endpoint context '[Project Management/RFI] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/export'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_rfis' by specifying an export/download function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'download_rfis_list_v1_1' or other export-related 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 prerequisites, such as needing a project_id, or compare it to other RFI-related tools like 'list_rfis' or 'download_rfis_list_v1_1'. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint and parameters alone.

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