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 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/alternative_response_sets' which implies a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read (non-destructive). It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'alternative response sets' actually are in this context.

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 appropriately concise with three distinct pieces of information: the action, domain context, and API endpoint. Each element earns its place, though the bracketed context could be integrated more smoothly. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'alternative response sets' are, what format the response takes, or any behavioral aspects like pagination defaults. The API endpoint provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing structural information.

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 descriptions for company_id, page, and per_page parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra context about parameter usage.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List Alternative Response Sets' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (like 'show_alternative_response_set' or 'add_alternative_response_set_to_project_checklist_template') beyond the 'list' action. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' provides some domain context but doesn't fully distinguish scope.

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 doesn't mention when you'd list alternative response sets versus showing a specific one, or when this is appropriate versus other checklist-related operations. The bracketed context hint is minimal and doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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