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 it's a list operation (GET), implying read-only, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The mention of 'GET /rest/v1.0/...' 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint adds technical context without verbosity. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' is ambiguous and doesn't add clear value.

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 list operation with filtering/pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filters apply. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex sibling tools, more context is needed for 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 fully documents the four parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying listing 'all' models, which aligns with the schema's filtering and pagination parameters. 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 all equipment models' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('equipment models'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_all_equipment_models_company_v2_0' or 'get_all_equipment_models_project_v2_0'. It lacks specificity about what 'all' means in context.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (company vs project), or compare with sibling list tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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