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 mentions 'Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration' which implies permission requirements, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is too sparse to adequately inform behavioral traits.

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 (two phrases) but inefficiently structured. The first phrase is tautological, and the second mixes permission context with an HTTP method. While concise, it doesn't front-load the most useful information and wastes space on the tautological restatement of the name.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what statistics are returned and the tool's behavior. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps. The mention of permissions is helpful but insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 My Open Items Statistics' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity about what the tool actually does. It mentions a resource ('open items') but lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'statistics' entails, and doesn't distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_open_items_statistics'.

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 includes '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]' which hints at permission context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'get_open_items_statistics'. It lacks any 'when' or 'when not' instructions, leaving usage unclear.

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