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 Activities' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, or authentication needs. The API path hint doesn't compensate for these omissions.

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 'List Activities' and an API path, but the category tag adds minimal value. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured. No wasted sentences, but it's borderline under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return format, or error handling. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it incomplete.

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 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, not even hinting at the filtering or sorting capabilities. 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 Activities' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether it lists all activities, filtered activities, or something else, and with many sibling list tools present, it doesn't distinguish itself beyond the generic category.

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 a category tag '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and an API path, but these don't offer practical usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons with other list tools in the sibling set.

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