Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but provides no information about pagination behavior (though the schema documents page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no projects exist for the group. The description is essentially just an API path with minimal behavioral context.

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 (just 8 words plus an API path), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core purpose, it lacks the necessary detail to be genuinely helpful. The API path inclusion adds some value but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual 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?

For a read operation with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'projects' means in this context, what data is returned, or how results are structured. While the schema covers input parameters well, the description fails to provide the necessary context about the operation's purpose and expected outcomes, especially given the complexity of the filtering options available.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 13 parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the heavy lifting. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema documentation.

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 'Get a Groups Projects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minor grammatical adjustment. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list/retrieval tools. While the API path provides some context, the description itself offers minimal value beyond the name.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools with 'get', 'list', and 'show' prefixes for various resources, but this description offers no differentiation. The agent receives no information about appropriate contexts or prerequisites for this specific retrieval operation.

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