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 does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, safe, or has side effects. It mentions pagination parameters but not how they affect results. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 fragment with an HTTP endpoint. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail for understanding the tool's purpose. It avoids redundancy but sacrifices clarity, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'next available number' returns (e.g., a number, an object) or how it's used in submittals. For a tool with pagination parameters and project context, more guidance is needed 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%, with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'page' and 'per_page' interact with 'next available number'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals/next_available_number' is tautological—it restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it mentions the resource ('submittals'), it lacks specificity about what 'next available number' means (e.g., for submittal numbering sequences). It distinguishes from siblings by context (submittals) but not clearly in purpose.

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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_next_available_number' or 'get_next_available_number_by_spec_section'). This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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