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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if this is safe (non-destructive), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits or pagination behaviors (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 consists of a single sentence fragment that lacks complete structure. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential information (e.g., purpose, usage) that would justify its brevity. It is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 (a read operation with pagination), the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate by explaining behavioral traits and return values. However, it does not address pagination behavior, authentication needs, or the structure of the returned catalogs. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of use.

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 descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions the path '/rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs', which is redundant with the schema's 'company_id' parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Catalogs. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'get_catalogs_v2_0' with minor elaboration. While it specifies the resource ('Catalogs') and hints at the domain ('Preconstruction/Cost Catalog'), it lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Get' and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings (e.g., other catalog-related tools like 'create_catalog_v2_0' or 'update_catalog_v2_0').

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 does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools (like 'create_catalog_v2_0' or 'update_catalog_v2_0') that might be relevant for different operations. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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