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 pagination parameters (page, per_page) and a date filter, implying list behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, safe to use, rate-limited, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON array of crew objects). The API endpoint hint ('GET') suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 API endpoint detail is extraneous for an AI agent but doesn't significantly harm conciseness. It could be more structured by separating usage notes, but it's efficient overall.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of crew objects with fields), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a list tool with pagination and filtering, more context on output and limits 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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters__updated_at affects results or typical use cases for pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all Project Crews'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on crews rather than other project entities, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_all_project_crew_ids').

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_all_project_crew_ids' or other crew-related tools.

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