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 Checklist Signature Requests' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss pagination behavior (though page/per_page parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's inferred from the endpoint.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase, a category tag, and an API endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to front-load essential information for an AI agent, such as clarifying the tool's purpose or usage. The structure is minimal but lacks the informative density needed for effective tool selection.

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 (a listing tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Checklist Signature Requests' are, how results are returned (e.g., paginated list), or any behavioral traits. The API endpoint provides some context, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, which it fails to do.

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 parameters (list_id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that list_id and project_id are required together) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Signature Requests' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds minimal value by specifying the resource ('Checklist Signature Requests') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_checklists, list_checklist_inspections). The category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/signature_requests' provide some context but don't sufficiently clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific checklist or project context), exclusions, or how it differs from other listing tools in the sibling set (like list_checklists or list_checklist_inspections). The API endpoint hints at a required list_id and project_id, but this is already covered in the input schema, not in usage guidance.

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