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 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal context beyond the 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 under-specified; it includes the tool name, a context tag, and API path in one sentence. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant name restatement. It could be more structured to immediately convey purpose.

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 3 parameters (including pagination). It fails to explain the return values, pagination behavior, or any error conditions. For a read operation with pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the API path hinting at 'company_id' context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Units of Measure' restates the tool name and adds a context tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and API path, but does not specify what action is performed (e.g., list, retrieve, search) or what resource is targeted (e.g., all units, filtered units). It distinguishes from siblings by name but lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 context tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' hints at a domain but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools include other 'list' and 'get' operations, but no differentiation is made.

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