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 states 'List Action Plans' and includes a REST endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (hinted by page/per_page parameters), filtering capabilities, or potential rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 short phrases, but it is not front-loaded with essential information. The REST endpoint detail is included, which may be redundant in some contexts. While efficient, it lacks structure that would enhance clarity, such as 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?

Given the complexity of 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error handling. For a list operation with extensive filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this description inadequate for the tool's scope.

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 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how filters interact or the purpose of the sort parameter). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Plans' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'Retrieve all action plans for a project with filtering options') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools, such as other list operations in the same domain.

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 prerequisites, such as requiring a project_id, or differentiate it from other list tools (e.g., list_action_plan_items). The inclusion of '[Project Management/Action Plans]' is vague and does not offer practical usage context.

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