Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all classifications' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The API path adds some context but lacks 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 'List all classifications' as the core statement, though the appended API path adds redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action, but the bracketed API details could be streamlined. No wasted sentences, but slight structural noise.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'classifications' are, the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with three parameters, 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 documents parameters well. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. It implies project-scoping via the API path but doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 classifications' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('classifications'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'all' classifications, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools. The additional API path context ('[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_classifications') reinforces the action but isn't part of the core description.

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 mentions 'all classifications' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool comparisons. The API path hints at project-specific classifications but doesn't clarify usage context or exclusions.

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