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. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/body_parts' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. The URL structure suggests it's a filtered list by company and incidents, but this isn't explained.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The bracketed context and URL are additional but not overly verbose. However, the URL could be considered extraneous since it's implementation detail not needed for tool selection. Overall, it's efficient but could be more focused on user guidance.

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?

For a list tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return type (e.g., array of body part objects), pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone, missing crucial behavioral context for proper invocation.

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 7 parameters (company_id, page, per_page, filters, sort). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 Body Parts' states the basic action (list) and resource (body parts), but it's vague about scope and context. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' adds some domain context, but doesn't specify what body parts are (e.g., anatomical parts for incident reporting). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a project/incidents context hint, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing company_id), use cases, or exclusions. With many sibling list tools, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific one.

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