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 states 'List Change Events' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, discuss pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—two short phrases—and front-loaded with the core action ('List Change Events'). However, it includes an API endpoint detail ('GET /rest/v1.0/change_events') that may be redundant for an agent focused on semantics. While efficient, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details), but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the system (e.g., part of Construction Financials), expected output format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more context, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', filters with formats). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Change Events. [Construction Financials/Change Events] GET /rest/v1.0/change_events' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'list_change_events' with minimal added context ('Construction Financials/Change Events' hints at domain). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'Retrieve paginated change events for a project') and does not distinguish from sibling tools, which include other list operations like 'list_change_events_v1_1'. This is a bare-minimum description that fails to clarify purpose beyond the obvious.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'list_change_events_v1_1' or other filtering tools) or specify contexts like project-specific queries. Without any usage instructions, an agent must infer from parameters alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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