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 endpoint, lacking details on whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint might be redundant if the agent already has structured API data, and it could be more structured by separating usage notes.

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 filtering options, and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, typical response structure, or error handling. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 (project_id, exclude_custom_fields, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the effect of 'exclude_custom_fields' on performance or default pagination values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Budget Change Summaries'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Budget'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on budget changes, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_budget_modifications' or 'list_budget_view_snapshots' that might exist in the sibling list, though those are not present here. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct.

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 the API endpoint but gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other budget-related tools. Without annotations or explicit instructions, the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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