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 Actions' and a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though parameters like 'page' and 'per_page' exist in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Actions' entail. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 short phrases and a URL. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Actions'). However, the URL is redundant with the tool's HTTP context and could be omitted for better clarity. The structure is efficient but includes unnecessary technical detail.

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 return format (e.g., list of action objects), pagination handling, or error conditions. For a list tool with filtering parameters, more context on behavior and output is needed, especially without annotations or output schema.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', 'incident_id' scoping). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 Actions. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Actions'), but is vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It mentions 'Project Management/Incidents' context but doesn't specify what 'Actions' are (e.g., incident actions, workflow actions). Compared to many 'list_' siblings, it doesn't clearly distinguish itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a URL path hint ('/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions'), implying it's for incident-related actions, but doesn't explicitly state this or mention when to choose it over other list tools (e.g., list_incidents, list_activities_v2_0). Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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