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 states 'Generates PDF Document' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation that creates a PDF. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is an asynchronous process (common in PDF generation), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., a file URL or status). The description is minimal and misses critical operational details.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase and an API endpoint, which doesn't earn its place as helpful content. While brief, it fails to convey essential information efficiently, making it ineffective rather than appropriately concise.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, lacks behavioral context, and provides no output information. For a tool that likely generates a PDF with user data based on filters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it 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%, meaning all 10 parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which fits here.

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 'Generates PDF Document' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/users/pdf', which hints at generating a PDF for users in a project, but lacks clear verb+resource distinction (e.g., 'Generates a PDF document listing users in a project based on filter criteria'). Compared to sibling tools like 'create_pdf_export_for_a_commitment_change_order_v2_0', it doesn't differentiate its purpose well.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), exclusions, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (like other PDF generation tools in the list). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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