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 only states it's a 'GET' operation, implying a read-only list, but does not disclose pagination behavior (though parameters like 'page' and 'per_page' exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. 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 a single line with three parts: tool name restatement, category tag, and HTTP endpoint. It is concise but under-specified—the category and endpoint are extraneous for an AI agent. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substantive content, making it inefficient despite brevity.

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 9 parameters (with complex filters), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, output format, or behavioral constraints. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, the description should at least clarify scope and typical use, which it does not.

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 9 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', filters, pagination). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how filters interact or typical usage patterns. Baseline 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 'List Action Plan References. [Project Management/Action Plans] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_references' restates the tool name ('List Action Plan References') without adding specificity. It includes a category tag and HTTP endpoint, but does not clarify what 'Action Plan References' are or what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves linked documents, related plans). This is a tautology of the name with minimal added 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. It does not mention any sibling tools (like 'show_action_plan_reference' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_references' from the sibling list) or contextual prerequisites. The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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