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 mentions the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/prime_contracts') which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., unfiltered vs. project-scoped). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the purpose and including the API endpoint. It's appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key usage information.

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?

For a list tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for an agent to understand how to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the relationship between parameters (e.g., that project_id is required for scoping).

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 clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('Prime Contracts'), with additional context about the category ('Construction Financials/Prime Contracts') and API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'all' contracts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set.

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 mentions 'List all Prime Contracts' but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or when other list tools might be more appropriate given the many sibling tools available.

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