Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET /oauth/authorize' which implies a read operation, but 'Grant' suggests a write/permission change. The description doesn't clarify whether this initiates user consent, returns tokens, requires user interaction, or has side effects like creating access tokens. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 very concise—just one sentence with the tool name and HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action but lacks depth. While efficient, it may be too brief given the complexity of OAuth authorization.

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?

For an OAuth authorization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the expected outcome (e.g., redirects, tokens), error conditions, or security implications. Given the complexity of authentication flows, more context is needed for an agent to use this correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters relate to OAuth flows (e.g., 'response_type' for authorization code vs implicit grant). Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Grant App Authorization' states the action (grant) and resource (app authorization), but it's vague about what this actually does. It doesn't specify whether this initiates an OAuth flow, creates tokens, or something else. The HTTP method 'GET /oauth/authorize' provides some technical context but doesn't clarify the user-facing purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing client credentials), typical OAuth flow contexts, or what happens after authorization is granted. The sibling tools list shows many unrelated tools, but no OAuth-specific alternatives are indicated.

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