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 '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', suggesting potential authorization needs, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it's safe, or any rate limits. The GET method implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated. The description lacks details on pagination, return format, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief but includes redundant elements: 'List all Classification' repeats the name, and the API path adds technical detail without clear user benefit. It is front-loaded with the core action but could be more structured. The sentence is efficient but under-specified, balancing conciseness with lack of clarity.

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 a read-like operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Classification' entails, the expected output, or how pagination works. The API path provides some context, but for a tool with 4 parameters and list functionality, more guidance on usage and results is needed for adequate completeness.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., company_id as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 all Classification' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_classifications', which provides API context but does not specify what 'Classification' refers to (e.g., work classifications, types, categories) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_all_classifications' (plural) or 'create_a_new_classification'. The purpose is vague beyond listing something.

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 includes '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at required permissions or context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, such as needing admin access, or comparisons to other list tools. The API path implies it's company-specific, but this is not clearly articulated as a usage guideline.

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