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'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The mention of pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') in the schema hints at paginated results, but the description doesn't clarify this. It lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool's purpose and REST endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the endpoint detail might be overly technical for an AI agent without additional context, slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Workflow Data' returns, how pagination works, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data (implied by pagination), the lack of output schema or description of return values leaves significant gaps for the 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 all parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('Workflow Data'), but it's vague about what 'Workflow Data' entails. It includes a category hint ('Project Management/Submittals') and a REST endpoint, which adds some context, but it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_instance_history_company_v2_0' or 'get_workflow_preset_company_v2_0'. The purpose is understandable but not specific.

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 (e.g., needing a specific project and submittal), exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint structure alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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