Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get Layers' with an endpoint, offering no information on whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The endpoint structure implies it's a GET request, but no behavioral traits are 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes an unnecessary REST endpoint detail that doesn't aid the AI agent. The single sentence is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'layers' are in this context, how results are returned, or any usage nuances. The lack of behavioral and output information makes it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 the 11 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'view' or filter parameters like 'filters__created_before', leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 Layers' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a context tag '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a REST endpoint, which hints at the domain but doesn't clearly explain what 'layers' are or what the tool does beyond a generic retrieval. It lacks a distinct verb-resource combination that differentiates it from siblings.

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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_layers_for_context', 'get_accessible_layers_for_authenticated_user_by_context'), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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