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 states 'Get project tasks' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters suggest pagination), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (no output schema). The API path hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral details.

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 a single sentence with an API path hint, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the core action ('Get project tasks') and avoids unnecessary words. However, the bracketed '[Preconstruction/Estimating]' and API path add minor clutter without clear value to 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return type (e.g., list of tasks with fields), pagination behavior, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and common sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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 descriptions for company_id, project_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., pagination defaults) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance or detract from that.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('project tasks'), which is clear. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all tasks, filtered tasks) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_task_by_id_v2_0_company' or 'get_project_tasks_v2_0_company_v2_0'. It includes an API path hint ('[Preconstruction/Estimating] GET /rest/v2.0/...') which adds some context but doesn't fully clarify purpose beyond the basic action.

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 sibling tools like 'get_project_task_by_id_v2_0_company' (for a single task) or 'get_project_tasks_v2_0_company_v2_0' (which appears similar), nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The API path hint implies it's for estimating tasks, but this isn't explicit guidance.

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