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 mentions pagination parameters indirectly via the endpoint path but doesn't explicitly state that this is a paginated list operation, describe rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'All' entails (e.g., includes archived groups?). The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence states the action and resource, and the endpoint path adds technical context, but it lacks helpful front-loaded guidance. It's brief but not optimally structured for agent understanding.

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 simple read operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of group objects), pagination behavior, or error conditions. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context for agent invocation is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that may offer similar functionality.

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 documentation for company_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 All Company Groups' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('Company Groups') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_groups' or 'get_a_single_group'. The bracketed categories and endpoint path add technical details but don't clarify the core purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_groups', 'get_a_single_group', and 'get_all_people_belonging_to_a_group', the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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