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 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 core action. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint and category tag adds some noise without providing actionable guidance, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, authentication, and how to interpret the calendar data. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the endpoint path hints. It does not explain relationships between company_id, project_id, and calendar_id, or clarify pagination usage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Calendar by ID', which clarifies the basic action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_calendars_v2_0' or 'get_schedule_by_id_v2_0', leaving the scope vague regarding what a 'calendar' entails in this context.

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 category tag '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and an API endpoint, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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