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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and includes an API endpoint hint, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, stating the purpose directly in the first phrase. The additional API endpoint information is relevant but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'RFIs locations' are, the format of the returned list, or any behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, this is inadequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available RFIs locations.' It specifies the resource (RFIs locations) and the action (list), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as many sibling tools also list various filter options (e.g., 'list_available_rfi_assigned_id_filter_options'), so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list includes many other filter option tools, but no comparison or usage scenario is given, leaving the agent without direction.

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