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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Get groups for layer') and includes an HTTP endpoint, but fails to describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated (implied by page/per_page parameters but not stated), or any rate limits. The endpoint format suggests it's a REST API call, but no behavioral traits are explicitly disclosed.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence plus an endpoint—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the conciseness borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations). While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'groups' are in this context, what the return structure looks like, or any error conditions. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters and multiple IDs, the description should provide more context about the data domain and expected behavior.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'groups' or 'layer' mean in context, or provide examples for the pagination parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no compensatory value.

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 for layer' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond the name, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_groups' or 'get_layers'. While the bracketed category '[Project Management/Document Markup]' provides some domain context, the core purpose remains vague.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for selecting this tool over similar list/retrieval tools in the sibling set, or any constraints on usage. The agent receives zero directional information about appropriate invocation scenarios.

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