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 'List Bid Packages' and includes a technical endpoint, but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), sorting options, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with two parts: a functional statement ('List Bid Packages') and technical context ('[Preconstruction/Bid Management] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/bid_packages'). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the technical details might be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint data. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 of a list operation with pagination and sorting, and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination limits. While the schema covers inputs well, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially for an agent without prior knowledge of the API.

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 parameters like 'company_id' and 'sort' with an enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 Bid Packages' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Bid Packages'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all bid packages or filtered) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_bid_packages_v1_1' or 'show_bid_package_company/project', making it vague in comparison.

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 mentions '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and a GET endpoint, but this is technical context rather than usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other list tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without practical guidance.

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