Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination parameters in the schema but doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only list operation. The description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the options are returned in, or any rate limits. The endpoint path suggests it's a GET request, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 but inefficient. It wastes characters on the tautological title repetition and includes endpoint details that belong in structured metadata. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information about what permission level options are or their purpose. The bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' adds some context but isn't integrated meaningfully.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'permission level options' are, what they're used for, or what the return structure looks like. The agent would need to infer this from the endpoint path alone. Compared to similar list/retrieval tools in the sibling set, this lacks necessary context about the domain and expected results.

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 documentation for company_id (including format details), page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (there are none).

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 Permission Level Options' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and the endpoint path, but doesn't clearly explain what 'permission level options' are or what specific resource they apply to. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_all_company_groups' or 'get_project_roles', this lacks specificity about what is being retrieved.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where this would be appropriate. Given the many sibling tools for retrieving various configuration options (like 'get_project_roles', 'get_all_job_titles_in_the_company'), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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