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. The description mentions it's a 'GET' operation, implying it's a read-only list operation, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'checklist item observation'. It lacks details on response format, error conditions, or any side effects.

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 with three parts: the tool name restatement, a category tag, and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though repetitive. There's no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 doesn't explain what 'checklist item observations' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Checklist Item Observations' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_item_observations', which provides some technical context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond listing observations. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 serve similar purposes. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters without any contextual direction.

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