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 only states 'Get Revisions' and an API endpoint, without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by page/per_page params but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 (one sentence with API endpoint) but under-specified, not truly efficient. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by omitting key information, making it borderline adequate.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, return values, or usage context. For a list/retrieve tool with pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 all parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides sufficient detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 Revisions. [Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}/revisions' is tautological, as it essentially restates the tool name ('Get Revisions') and adds an API endpoint. It specifies the resource (submittal revisions) but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'Get' and does not distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'get_revisions_v1_1' or other list/retrieve tools).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tool 'get_revisions_v1_1', it fails to differentiate usage, leaving the agent without direction.

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