Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'GET' (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated lists, or what 'contexts' represent. The description is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation support.

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 wastes space on redundant information (repeating 'Get Contexts') and includes an API endpoint that doesn't aid understanding. While brief, it lacks front-loaded clarity, forcing the agent to infer purpose from the endpoint structure rather than a clear summary.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contexts' are, how filtering works, or the return format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by detailing behavior and output, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id', 'filters__id'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining filter usage or pagination behavior. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately defines parameters without description enhancement.

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 Contexts. [Project Management/Document Markup] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/domains/contexts' restates the tool name ('Get Contexts') without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions a category and API endpoint but lacks a clear verb+resource definition (e.g., what 'contexts' are, such as project settings or document categories). Compared to sibling tools like 'get_context_by_id', it doesn't distinguish scope or functionality.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required company/project IDs), filtering capabilities (via parameters like 'filters__created_before'), or sibling tools (e.g., 'get_context_by_id' for single context retrieval). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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