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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets documents' (implying a read-only operation) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but this is insufficient for comprehensive transparency.

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 with the core purpose. It consists of a single sentence stating the tool's function, followed by a context tag and API endpoint. While the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent, it does not significantly detract from clarity. The structure is efficient 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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 2 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not address gaps like pagination handling or error scenarios. It meets a basic threshold but leaves room for improvement.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description does not need to compensate. It neither adds nor detracts from parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets documents attached to Bid Package.' It specifies the verb ('Gets') and resource ('documents attached to Bid Package'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools (e.g., other document retrieval tools in the list), which prevents a perfect score.

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 includes a context tag '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and an API endpoint, but these do not indicate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the score is low.

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