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 states 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and the API path. However, it is not front-loaded with critical usage information, and the API path, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making. The structure is simple but lacks efficiency in guiding the 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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values are (e.g., list of assignments with details), pagination behavior, or error cases. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (company_id, group_id, page, dayRange, start_day, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between dayRange and start_day. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Get Group Assignments' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on 'assignments' for a 'group'. However, it lacks specificity about what 'assignments' are (e.g., workforce assignments, tasks) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, as many siblings are also 'get' operations (e.g., get_company_assignments, get_person_assignments). The inclusion of the API path adds technical context but doesn't clarify the business purpose.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison (e.g., get_company_assignments, get_person_assignments). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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