Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read operation ('GET') but does not clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), paginated (though parameters suggest it), or has rate limits. The mention of 'page' and 'per_page' in the schema hints at pagination, but the description fails to explicitly state this behavior, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get Revisions') and avoids unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of the full API path is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be trimmed for better focus, though it does provide context.

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 tool with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'revisions' returns (e.g., a list of revision objects), how pagination works, or error conditions. For a read operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions the API path with placeholders, which aligns with the schema but does not provide extra context like format examples or constraints. 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 Revisions. [Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}/revisions' restates the tool name ('Get Revisions') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource (submittal revisions) but is vague about what 'revisions' entails (e.g., list, details, history). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_revisions' (without version), which appears in the sibling list, leaving ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and submittal ID), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'get_revisions' (without version suffix) in the sibling list. Without context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage.

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