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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Index Bid Forms' and includes an API endpoint. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it does), rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The endpoint path suggests a GET operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise (just 7 words plus an API path), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API endpoint inclusion adds technical detail but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation.

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 a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'indexing' means operationally, what the return format is, or how the various filtering/search/pagination parameters work together. The API path provides some context but doesn't substitute for functional documentation.

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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how excluded_bid_form_id interacts with search) or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 'Index Bid Forms' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path, which provides some context but doesn't specify what 'index' means in this context (list, retrieve, search?). The description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling list/retrieval tools like 'list_bid_packages' or 'view_bid_form_project'.

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. There are many sibling tools for listing/retrieving bid-related data (list_bid_packages, view_bid_form_project, etc.), but the description offers no comparison or context about when this specific indexing operation is appropriate versus other retrieval methods.

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