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 /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/affected_body_parts' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 brief (one sentence with API endpoint) and front-loaded with the tool name, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The API endpoint detail is useful but could be structured better. It avoids waste but lacks essential explanatory content, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'affected body parts' are in this context, the format of the returned data, or any error conditions. For a read operation in a complex domain (incidents), more context 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how parameters affect the query or results. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add value 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 restates the tool name ('Get Affected Body Parts') and adds a category tag and API endpoint, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'retrieve a list of affected body parts from incidents'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning '[Project Management/Incidents]' but lacks a clear verb+resource statement. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 the category '[Project Management/Incidents]' which hints at context, but doesn't explain prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate. No explicit when/when-not/alternatives are provided.

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