Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It includes the API endpoint which may be useful for debugging. However, the inclusion of the endpoint could be considered extraneous for an agent-focused description, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 read operation with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'invoice configuration' entails, the response format, pagination behavior, or error handling. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively despite the complete parameter schema.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Contract's Invoice Configuration'), with additional context about the domain ('Construction Financials/Contracts') and API endpoint. It's specific but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as the sibling list includes many unrelated tools and no obvious alternatives for invoice configuration retrieval.

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 includes the API endpoint but doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or alternative tools for similar data. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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