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 only states the action ('Get import status') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the response format entails. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence and includes the API endpoint path, which is efficient. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Scheduling]' is ambiguous and does not add clear value, slightly reducing the score from perfect.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'import status' entails, the expected return format, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool with rich parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., company_id, job_id). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Get import status' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_import_status_v2_0' without adding clarity. It does not specify what resource's import status is being retrieved (e.g., schedule import job status) or distinguish it from sibling tools, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a job_id from an import initiation) or comparisons to other status-checking tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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