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 indicates a GET operation (from the URL), implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 a single sentence that restates the tool name and includes the HTTP endpoint, which is somewhat redundant but provides technical context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more structured (e.g., separating functional description from technical details). It avoids unnecessary verbosity but lacks efficiency in conveying key usage 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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the system, the meaning of 'by Index', expected output format, or error handling. For a tool with many parameters and no structured output, more contextual information is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'type' interacts with scope parameters) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('Find') and resource ('Configurable Field Set by Index'), and includes the context '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which helps scope its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as the sibling list is extensive and includes many 'list' or 'get' tools, but none with identical naming or clear overlap.

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 mentions a category ('Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools') but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for similar tasks, leaving the agent without usage context.

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