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 /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_receivers' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters are applied. The HTTP method hint is useful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with the tool name, category, and API endpoint. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details.

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 list operation with 6 parameters (including pagination and filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'receivers' are, what the output looks like, how pagination works, or the relationship between filters. The API endpoint provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and semantic information.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'List Action Plan Receivers' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't specify what 'receivers' are (e.g., people, groups, roles) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_action_plan_approvers' or 'list_action_plan_item_assignees'. The category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to action plans (approvers, assignees, references, etc.), there's no indication of what makes 'receivers' distinct or when this specific listing operation is appropriate.

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