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. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API endpoint detail might be overly technical for some users, and it could be more structured to separate business purpose from 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Notification Profile' is, what data is returned, or how the pagination works in practice. For a tool with 6 parameters and likely complex data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and 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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters (company_id, limit, starting_after, starting_before, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between pagination parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 Resource Planning Notification Profiles' states the action (Get) and resource (Resource Planning Notification Profiles), but it's vague about what 'Notification Profiles' are and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It includes an API endpoint '[Resource Management/Resource Planning] GET /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/notification-profiles' which adds technical context but doesn't clarify the business purpose beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., list_* tools), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader workflow or when it's appropriate to use.

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