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 fails to disclose critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what the returned token info includes (e.g., scopes, expiry). This leaves significant gaps for a tool in the authentication domain.

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. It repeats the tool name, includes redundant platform context, and uses a verbose format with brackets and an endpoint. While not overly wordy, it lacks front-loaded clarity and could be more streamlined to convey essential information without clutter.

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 authentication tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on authentication needs, return format (e.g., JSON structure), and error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use 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 parameters 'page' and 'per_page' clearly documented for pagination. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Token Info. [Platform - Developer Tools/Authentication] GET /oauth/token/info' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Get Token Info') without specifying what 'Token Info' means (e.g., OAuth token metadata, expiration, scopes). The platform context is noted, but the purpose lacks specificity about the resource or action, making it tautological and unclear.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., authentication flows), or sibling tools (like 'revoke_token' or 'get_or_refresh_an_access_token'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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