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 'List' and includes an HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with 26 parameters.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The API endpoint adds technical detail but is not verbose. However, the inclusion of the endpoint in brackets feels slightly cluttered, though it does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 (26 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, filtering logic), output format, error conditions, and usage context. For a list tool with extensive filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent invoke it 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%, with detailed descriptions for all 26 parameters (e.g., 'filters__created_at' explains date range formats). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Action Plan Items', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_action_plans', 'list_action_plan_sections'), leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Project Management/Action Plans] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_items' adds technical context but does not enhance functional clarity for an AI agent.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_action_plans' or filtered listing tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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