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 the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned (e.g., schedule details, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get Schedule by ID'). The additional API endpoint detail is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. It could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes), but it's efficient for its length.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., schedule object fields), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this is inadequate to guide an 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 descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., hierarchy) or optional pagination usage.

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 tool's purpose ('Get Schedule by ID') with the resource (schedule) and verb (get), but it's vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for schedules, but many sibling tools also retrieve specific items (e.g., 'get_equipment_by_id_company_v2_0'), so differentiation is minimal.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and API endpoint, but this doesn't help an agent decide between this and other retrieval tools (e.g., 'list_schedules_v2_0' or other 'get_by_id' tools).

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