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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get Incident Statuses' and includes an endpoint, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format is (e.g., list of status objects), or any rate limits. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, implying a safe read, but this is not explicitly stated. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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: 'Get Incident Statuses' and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though vague. The endpoint adds technical context without unnecessary detail. However, the tautological first part reduces efficiency, preventing a perfect score.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'Incident Statuses' are, the return format, or how pagination works. The endpoint provides some context, but without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and results fully.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., pagination behavior) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 'Get Incident Statuses' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_incident_statuses' without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb or resource scope, and while the bracketed category '[Project Management/Incidents]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/statuses' provide some context, they do not clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., list statuses, retrieve definitions). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_incident_statuses' or 'get_incident_severity_levels'.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_incidents', 'get_incident_severity_levels'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or when it is appropriate.

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