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 mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method.

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 ('List Calendars'), followed by a category and endpoint. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 8 parameters (including filtering, sorting, pagination). It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain filtering logic or sorting options). Baseline 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 'List Calendars. [Project Management/Scheduling] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/calendars' restates the tool name ('List Calendars') and adds an HTTP method and endpoint path, but it doesn't specify what 'list' means (e.g., retrieve, filter, paginate) or distinguish it from sibling tools. It's vague beyond the basic verb+resource.

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, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the implied action from the name.

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