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 it's a GET operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'List' entails (e.g., returns all sections or filtered). The mention of pagination parameters in the schema isn't explained in the description.

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 but includes an unnecessary HTTP method and endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/sections') that doesn't aid the AI agent. The bracketed context is useful but could be integrated more smoothly. It's front-loaded but not optimally structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'sections' are, the return format, or behavioral details like pagination. For a list operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed to use the tool 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 fully documents the four parameters (company_id, list_template_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with high coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 Company Checklist Sections' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Company Checklist Sections') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds some context but is vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_checklist_templates'), the agent has no help selecting this specific list operation.

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