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 only states the action ('List') and includes an HTTP method ('GET'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like. For a list tool with 8 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes an HTTP method and endpoint path, which adds technical context without verbosity. However, the bracketed domain context '[Construction Financials/Budget]' is slightly redundant given the tool name, but not wasteful.

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 the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. While the schema covers inputs, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at the response structure, but it doesn't. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to invoke the tool 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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Budget View Snapshots'), and includes a domain context '[Construction Financials/Budget]'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'list_budget_views', 'list_budget_view_snapshot_detail_rows').

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for different scenarios (e.g., filtering vs. listing all). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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