Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get Groups' and an API path, offering no information on whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by page/per_page parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, consisting of only three fragments. It wastes space on redundant information (the tool name) and an API path without explaining its significance. The structure lacks front-loaded clarity, failing to immediately convey the tool's function or value.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'groups' are in this context, how results are returned, or any behavioral expectations. For a tool with many parameters and no structured guidance, the description should provide more context to compensate, which it fails to do.

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 11 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, project_id, page, filters). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining what 'groups' are, how filters work, or the purpose of the 'view' parameter. However, since the schema fully covers parameter descriptions, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Groups' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and an API path, but these do not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list groups, retrieve group details). The purpose remains vague, as it fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_all_company_groups' or 'get_a_single_group'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required company_id and project_id), filtering capabilities, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_all_company_groups'. Without any usage context, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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