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. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes the API path, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though page/per_page parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by 'List'.

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 purpose. The bracketed context and API path add some clutter but don't significantly impact readability. It could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the context more smoothly), but it's efficiently sized with no wasted sentences.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the filtering system (multiple filters__* parameters), pagination behavior, sorting options, or what the returned data looks like. The API path inclusion is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output context needed for effective tool 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 already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how filters interact, provide examples of filter usage, or clarify parameter relationships. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Company Checklist Templates' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (company checklist templates). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that might also list templates or similar resources, and the bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds some context but isn't fully integrated into the purpose statement.

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. While the sibling list includes many other list_* tools, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus, for example, list_checklist_templates or list_project_checklist_templates. The HTTP method and path are included but don't constitute usage guidance.

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