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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the 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 concise—a single sentence with platform context and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the platform context in brackets feels tacked on rather than integrated, and the endpoint detail might be excessive for a description. Overall, it's efficient but could be better structured.

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 6 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering works. For a list tool with filtering and pagination parameters, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and 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 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how filters work together, default values, or parameter interactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add value here.

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 app configurations' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'list_app_configurations'. It lacks specificity about what 'app configurations' are, what resource is being listed, and how this differs from sibling tools. While it includes a platform context and API endpoint, these don't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools (like 'create_app_configuration' or 'show_app_configuration'). The platform context hint is minimal and doesn't constitute actionable usage guidance.

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