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 states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving key operational aspects unspecified.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and a path hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the path hint is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be more informative if integrated into usage guidelines. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the complexity (a read operation with pagination) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Budget View Options' returns (e.g., a list of view configurations, metadata), how pagination works, or any expected output format. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately covers the basics. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 Budget View Options' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Budget View Options'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Budget View Options' actually are (e.g., configuration settings, available views, or metadata). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_project_budget_view_options_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about scope (company vs. project).

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 includes a path hint '[Construction Financials/Budget] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/project_status_snapshots/budget_views', which implies a company-level operation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_project_budget_view_options_v2_0' for project-level). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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