Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). It's efficient but slightly terse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get a Single Job Title' returns, how pagination works with a single resource, or error cases. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured support, more context is needed.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between company_id and job_title_id. 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 states the tool 'Get a Single Job Title' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which clarifies it's a retrieval operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_job_titles_in_the_company' or 'get_all_job_titles_belonging_to_a_group', leaving the scope ambiguous. The description is functional but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific job_title_id, or compare it to list-oriented siblings. Without usage context, the agent must infer from parameters alone.

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