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 'GET /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/assignments/current' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read, whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 sentence that restates the tool name and includes the HTTP endpoint. While concise, it's not front-loaded with critical information—the endpoint details could be secondary. It wastes no words but could be more structured to highlight purpose first. It's adequate but not exemplary.

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 read operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current assignments' are, what the return format looks like, or any pagination behavior beyond what's implied in the parameter schema. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the data returned.

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 detailed descriptions for company_id (including format options), page (0-based index, 400 items per page), and per_page (max 100). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get Current Company Assignments' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation for assignments. However, it doesn't specify what 'assignments' are (e.g., resource assignments, project assignments) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_company_assignments' or 'get_person_assignments' that might exist in the sibling list. The description is functional but lacks specificity about the resource type.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with 'assignments' in their names (like 'get_company_assignments', 'get_group_assignments', 'get_person_assignments', 'get_project_assignments'), but the description doesn't clarify that this tool is for 'current' assignments specifically or differentiate it from other assignment-related tools. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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