Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or mention any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no billing periods exist. The HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path provide some implementation context but not sufficient behavioral guidance for an AI agent.

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 main parts: the functional purpose and implementation details. The first part 'List billing periods' is front-loaded and clear. The bracketed context and endpoint information, while not essential for tool selection, are efficiently presented. There's no wasted verbiage, though the structure could be improved by separating functional from implementation concerns more clearly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters including filtering options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and basic operation but lacks important context about what billing periods represent in this domain, typical use cases, or what the output looks like. The endpoint path suggests this is project-specific billing data, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide usage examples, or clarify the relationship between project_id and the filtering parameters. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but also doesn't need to compensate for schema 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 states the tool's purpose as 'List billing periods' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_bids_within_a_project, list_checklists, etc.) beyond the specific resource type. The additional text '[Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/billing_periods' provides implementation context but doesn't enhance the functional purpose clarity.

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. There are many other list tools in the sibling set, but no indication of when this specific billing periods listing is appropriate versus other financial listing tools or general filtering approaches. The description lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context.

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