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 states 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, if it increments a counter, what permissions are required, or potential side effects (e.g., reserving a number). The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence with the tool name, category, and URL. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary detail for clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name, but the URL adds clutter without explanatory value. It's efficient but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 (a tool that likely returns a number for submittals), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a number, an object), how it's used in workflows, or any error conditions. For a tool with potential side effects (e.g., number reservation), this is inadequate.

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 clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain why pagination parameters are present for a 'next available number' tool or how they affect the result. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Next Available Number. [Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals/next_available_number' states the action ('Get') and resource ('Next Available Number'), with context in brackets. However, it's vague about what 'Next Available Number' means (e.g., for submittals, RFIs, etc.), and while it mentions submittals, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_next_available_number_by_spec_section' or 'get_next_available_number_v1_1'. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 mentions 'Project Management/Submittals' and a URL path, but doesn't explain the context (e.g., for generating submittal numbers) or compare to sibling tools like 'get_next_available_number_by_spec_section'. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer usage from the URL alone.

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