Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (though the schema shows pagination parameters), or what format the assignments data returns. The HTTP method 'GET' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence provides minimal value, and the bracketed domain context feels like metadata rather than helpful description. It fails to front-load essential information about what the tool actually does.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'assignments' are, what data structure returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively given the complexity implied by the parameter count.

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 fully documents all 11 parameters including company_id, date filters, pagination, and range parameters. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does all the work.

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 Company Assignments' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to clarify what 'assignments' refer to in this domain. The bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' provides some domain context but doesn't explain what the tool actually retrieves.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name itself.

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