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 endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' params), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 with two parts: a clear title-like phrase and an endpoint path. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the system, output expectations, or error handling. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how filters interact or the purpose of the 'view' enum. 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 Sections' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Action Plan Sections'), but it's generic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It lacks specificity about scope or context beyond the category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and endpoint path.

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 an endpoint path but offers no context about prerequisites, related tools, or filtering capabilities. It's purely functional without usage context.

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