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 it's a GET operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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. The bracketed context and HTTP endpoint are arguably extraneous but don't significantly harm readability. It's efficient, though the endpoint detail might be better placed elsewhere.

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, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or project context. For a list tool with parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain why project_id is required or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('Checklist Templates'), but it's vague about scope and lacks distinction from sibling tools. It doesn't specify if it lists all templates, only templates for a project, or templates across the system. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds some context but is ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a project context via the bracketed text, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, when not to use it, or name any sibling tools for comparison. The required 'project_id' parameter implies project-scoped usage, but this isn't stated in the description.

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