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 /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_sections', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or if there are pagination behaviors (though parameters suggest pagination). The description lacks behavioral details 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 to the point: 'List Checklist (Inspection) Sections. [Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_sections'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though the second part is more technical. There's no wasted verbiage, but the structure could be improved by integrating the context more smoothly.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but lacks details on output, error handling, or operational constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description and parameters, leaving gaps in understanding the full context.

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 7 parameters (e.g., project_id, page, filters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how filters interact or typical usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 'List Checklist (Inspection) Sections', which clearly indicates a listing action on a specific resource (checklist/inspection sections). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_checklist_inspections' or 'list_checklist_sections' that might exist, and the bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds some context but isn't fully integrated into the purpose statement.

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 path which implies a technical context, but gives no practical usage scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools that might handle similar data (like other checklist-related list operations).

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