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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/parties', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe/non-destructive. It doesn't describe pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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—two brief phrases and an endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second part '[Project Management/Action Plans] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/parties' feels more like metadata than helpful description. While efficient, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters (with one required), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'parties' are, what the output contains, or how pagination/filtering works in practice. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to use it effectively. The endpoint path provides some structure but doesn't substitute for a complete description.

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 6 parameters (project_id, page, per_page, sort, filters__id, filters__updated_at). The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'parties' are or how filtering/sorting applies to them. 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 'List Action Plan Parties' restates the tool name with minimal context. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the HTTP endpoint, which provides some domain context but doesn't specify what 'parties' means (e.g., assignees, approvers, stakeholders). The verb 'List' is clear, but the resource 'Action Plan Parties' remains vague without further explanation of what constitutes a 'party' in this context.

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. Given the sibling tools list includes many other 'list_' tools (like list_action_plan_items, list_action_plan_approvers), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The endpoint path suggests it's scoped to a specific project's action plans, but this is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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