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 only states 'GET' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page params but not explained), or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds minimal value 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 brief but inefficiently structured. The first part 'Get Person Assignments' is redundant, while the bracketed categories and API path add technical detail without user-facing value. It's concise but not well-structured for an AI agent's understanding.

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 read operation with 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'assignments' are, the response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The lack of annotations exacerbates this gap, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain dayRange/start_day relationships or pagination behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Person Assignments' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to explain what 'assignments' are or what the tool actually retrieves. The bracketed categories and API path provide technical context but don't clarify the purpose for an AI agent.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Given the many sibling tools (over 1,000), this absence is particularly problematic.

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