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. It only states it's a GET operation via the endpoint, implying a read-only fetch. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., what 'processing state' includes), pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), error conditions, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is tautological, and the bracketed domain text and endpoint details are appended without clear integration. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information (tool name restatement) rather than providing actionable guidance. The endpoint detail might help developers but doesn't aid an AI agent's decision-making.

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 for a tool with three parameters. It fails to explain what 'processing state' returns, how pagination works with the page/per_page parameters, or any error scenarios. For a read operation that likely returns structured status data, the description leaves critical gaps about behavioral outcomes and result interpretation.

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 documentation in the schema (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional semantic context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 Schedule Import processing state' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Schedule Import processing state') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Get' and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify what 'processing state' entails or how this differs from other schedule-related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or related tools. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_schedule_metadata', 'initiate_schedule_import_v2_0'), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate invocation contexts.

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