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 '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies', which hints at required permissions (admin-level) and the HTTP method (safe GET). However, it does not disclose critical behaviors like pagination defaults, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list includes all companies or is scoped. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied safety of a GET.

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 three fragments: 'List Companies.', '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', and 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies'. While not verbose, the first fragment is redundant, and the structure does not front-load the most useful information (e.g., permission context). It earns its place partially by hinting at permissions and the endpoint.

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 (list operation with pagination and filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return format (e.g., array of company objects), pagination behavior, error conditions, and the scope of 'companies'. The permission hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 'page', 'per_page', and 'include_free_companies'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain default values or typical usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 Companies' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what 'list' means (e.g., retrieve, paginate, filter) or what 'companies' refers to (e.g., all companies in the system, companies accessible to the user). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., list_projects, list_company_users_v1_0).

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 prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions implied by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), nor does it differentiate it from other list or company-related tools in the sibling list. The agent is left with no usage context.

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