Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extraneous details like the endpoint path ('GET /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/assignments') and category tag ('[Resource Management/Resource Planning]'), which do not aid the AI agent in tool selection. While concise, these elements clutter without adding value.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits essential context such as the return format (e.g., list of assignments), pagination behavior, error handling, and any dependencies or side effects. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks a complete understanding of how to interpret 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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', 'dayRange'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Project Assignments'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on assignments for a specific project, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'get_company_assignments').

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 like 'get_company_assignments' or 'get_person_assignments'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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