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 indicates a read operation ('GET') and includes pagination parameters, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of returned metadata. The mention of 'Legacy' hints at potential deprecation but lacks details.

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, stating the purpose in the first phrase. The additional context in brackets and the API endpoint are relevant but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure is slightly fragmented with bracketed information.

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 of a metadata retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'Schedule Metadata' entails, the format of the response, error conditions, and behavioral context. The 'Legacy' tag suggests potential issues, but no further explanation is provided, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'project_id' or constraints on 'per_page' beyond 'max 100'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Schedule Metadata'), making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are many 'get' and 'schedule' related tools in the list, such as 'get_schedule_by_id_v2_0' and 'update_schedule_metadata', but no explicit comparison is provided.

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 mentions the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule') and context ('Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)'), but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like 'get_schedule_by_id_v2_0' or 'update_schedule_metadata'.

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