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 a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational 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 concise with two sentences: 'List Bid Uploads. [Preconstruction/Bid Management] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/bids/{bid_id}/uploads'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes additional context efficiently, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination details, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 all parameters (company_id, bid_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 Uploads' clearly states the action (list) and resource (bid uploads), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools. It doesn't specify if it lists all uploads for a bid or filtered ones, and with many sibling 'list_' tools, it doesn't distinguish itself.

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 includes a category '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/bids/{bid_id}/uploads', which implies context but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other listing tools in the sibling set.

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