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 the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose directly. However, it includes technical details like '[Construction Financials/Currency Configurations]' and the endpoint path, which may be redundant or overly technical without adding clarity for an AI agent.

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 of a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'currency configuration' includes (e.g., settings, formats, exchange rates) or the expected return format, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination behavior or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get Company Currency Configuration', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'get_project_currency_configuration') or specify what 'currency configuration' entails, making it somewhat vague.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid company_id, and does not mention any related tools (e.g., create or update currency configuration tools) for comparison.

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