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 states 'GET', indicating a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), error handling, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. 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 concise with three parts: tool name, domain context, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and wastes no space, earning a high score for efficiency despite minor structural issues.

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, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., workflow steps, statuses), error conditions, or usage constraints. The endpoint provides some context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output information, making it inadequate for a read operation tool in a complex domain.

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 parameters like 'Unique identifier for the project.' and 'Page number for pagination'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats parameter names in the endpoint path. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 Workflow Data' restates the tool name and adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Submittals]' and the API endpoint. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Workflow Data' but lacks specificity about what workflow data entails (e.g., steps, statuses, history) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_data_v1_1' or other workflow-related tools in the list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes the API path '/rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals/{id}/workflow_data', which implies it's for submittal-specific workflow data, but it does not mention when to choose this over other workflow tools (e.g., 'get_workflow_instance_history_company_v2_0') or clarify prerequisites. Usage is implied by the endpoint but not clearly stated.

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