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 mentions 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (though parameters suggest it), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The endpoint path hints at a REST API, but no further context is given.

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 with the tool name, category, and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by separating functional details from technical endpoint info, but it's appropriately sized for a list tool.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of approver objects), pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with filtering and pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 the 6 parameters (e.g., project_id, page, filters). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how filters interact or typical values. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose as 'List Action Plan Approvers' with a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and HTTP method 'GET'. This is clear but generic—it doesn't specify what 'approvers' are (e.g., users, roles) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_action_plan_template_approvers' or 'list_action_plan_receivers'. The verb 'List' is appropriate, but the resource scope is vague.

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 includes a category and endpoint path, but there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from similar list tools (e.g., for templates or other action plan entities). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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