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 mentions it's a POST request (implying it might be a filtered list via POST rather than a simple GET), but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, safe, or has side effects. It also omits details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are critical for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the resource path. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). However, it efficiently conveys the essential information in a single line.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'budget details' entail, the format of the output, or behavioral traits like filtering logic (e.g., how array parameters work). For a tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'Budget View ID', 'Cost Code Filter'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Budget Details' and includes the resource path '[Construction Financials/Budget] POST /rest/v1.0/budget_views/{budget_view_id}/budget_details', which clarifies it's a listing operation for budget details within a specific budget view. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools (e.g., other list_* tools) beyond the resource name, making it somewhat vague in distinguishing its specific scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_view_id), exclusions, or comparisons to other budget-related tools (e.g., list_budget_views, list_budget_view_summary_rows). This absence leaves the agent without usage direction.

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