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 only states 'GET' (implying a read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, idempotent, paginated (though schema hints at pagination), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' entails. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 concise but under-specified. It wastes characters on the API endpoint path which isn't helpful for an agent. The structure isn't front-loaded with useful information; it could better organize purpose and context. However, it's not verbose.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active reinspection' returns, its format, or behavioral context. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more guidance on response structure and usage is needed, especially without annotations.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between company_id, project_id, inspection_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 'Get Active Reinspection' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path but doesn't explain what 'active reinspection' means or what resource is being retrieved. The category '[Project Management/Inspections]' provides some context but doesn't specify the verb's action or differentiate from sibling tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for 'active reinspection,' or refer to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and path, which is insufficient.

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