Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters in the schema, but doesn't explicitly state that it's safe/non-destructive, doesn't describe response format or structure, doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 (one sentence plus HTTP method/path) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes the HTTP endpoint path which adds technical detail but minimal explanatory value for an AI agent. The description could be more efficiently structured by focusing on conceptual guidance rather than implementation details.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'assignment history data' actually contains, what the response format looks like, or how the various boolean parameters affect the output. For a data retrieval tool with many filtering options and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the returned data structure and relationships between parameters.

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 already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly with good descriptions. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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's Assignment History Data'), and includes a category tag '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' that provides context. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools that are create/update/delete operations by being a read-only data retrieval tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'get_persons_assignment_history_data' which appears in the sibling list.

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. While the sibling list includes 'get_persons_assignment_history_data' which appears related, there's no indication of when to choose one over the other. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or constraints beyond what's implied by the HTTP method and path.

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