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 states 'List Commitments' and includes an API endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, supports pagination, or has rate limits. The mention of 'GET' implies a read operation, but this is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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's a single sentence with an API endpoint. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks necessary detail for clarity. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete, making it minimally adequate rather than efficient.

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 list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Commitments' are, the return format, or how pagination works. For a tool with three parameters and no structured guidance, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is provided 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 Commitments. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/commitments' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'list_commitments' and adds an API endpoint without clarifying what 'Commitments' are or what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings, making it vague for an AI agent.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_commitment_contracts_v2_0'), this gap is significant.

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