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 only states 'Get Change Event Settings' and a REST endpoint, lacking any behavioral details such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to disclose critical traits for safe invocation.

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 sentences: a tautological purpose statement and a REST endpoint. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first sentence lacks substance. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for brevity despite the lack of informative content.

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 settings retrieval tool with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Change Event Settings' entails, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral context. The agent lacks sufficient information to understand the tool's full scope and usage.

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 all parameters (company_id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate or add value regarding parameters.

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 Change Event Settings' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It includes a bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Change Events]' and a REST endpoint, but these do not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves configuration, rules, or preferences for change events). The verb 'Get' is generic, and the resource 'Change Event Settings' is vague without elaboration.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other 'change_event' or 'settings' tools). The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the implied action of fetching settings.

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