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 mentions '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', implying potential permission needs, but does not detail whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about 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 concise with two parts: the functional purpose and a technical endpoint. However, the technical detail (API endpoint) may not be necessary for an AI agent and could be considered clutter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes extraneous information that doesn't add value for tool selection.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'Open Items Statistics' entails, the format of returned data, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to be complete.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get Open Items Statistics', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_open_items_statistics' or other statistics-related tools, and the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration] GET /rest/v1.0/open_items/all' adds technical detail but doesn't clarify functional distinctions. This makes it adequate but vague regarding scope.

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 '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', which hints at permission requirements but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent lacks usage context.

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