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 states 'Download schedule file' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a file stream or metadata, or handles errors. The mention of 'Legacy' hints at potential deprecation but lacks details. This leaves 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 with two short phrases, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., it buries the HTTP method and legacy hint). While efficient, it could be better structured to prioritize key details like the action and resource type.

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 of a download operation with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what is returned (e.g., file content, download link, error responses), authentication requirements, or how pagination interacts with file downloads. With no annotations and an unspecified output, the description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'page' and 'per_page' for pagination). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 'Download schedule file' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and 'GET /rest/v1.0/schedule_integration/download', which provide some context but do not specify what resource is being downloaded (e.g., a file format, content type) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0'. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 (e.g., needing an existing schedule file), exclusions, or related tools like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0' or 'get_schedule_metadata'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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