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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist), or what the configuration data includes. The endpoint path suggests a REST GET call, but the description adds no context beyond that.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a single sentence plus endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint path could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 'incident configuration' returns, its structure, or typical use cases. The agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's role and output.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'project_id' relates to incidents, or how pagination works for configuration data. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Project Incident Configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project_incident_configuration' or other configuration-related tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' and endpoint path provide some context but don't clarify what 'incident configuration' entails.

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 tool is appropriate. Given the sibling list includes 'update_project_incident_configuration', the agent receives no help in choosing between read vs. write operations for incident configuration.

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