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. It only states the action ('Get layers') without describing the operation's safety (e.g., read-only vs. mutative), pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes an HTTP method and path ('GET /rest/v1.0/...'), which adds technical detail but doesn't enhance clarity for an AI agent. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loaded usefulness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'layers' are, the expected return format, or any behavioral nuances like pagination or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', 'context_id', 'page', 'per_page'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately defines the parameters.

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 for context' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions a resource ('layers') and a context ('context'), but lacks a clear verb or scope, making it vague about what the tool actually does compared to similar list operations.

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, constraints, or sibling tools that might be relevant, leaving the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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