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 Company Insurances' and includes an API endpoint hint ('[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/insurances'), which implies a read-only GET operation. However, it does not disclose critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The endpoint hint adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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—two short phrases—and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API endpoint detail ('[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/insurances') is somewhat technical and may not be necessary for an AI agent if the schema is clear. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return type (e.g., array of insurance objects), pagination behavior, or error handling. The endpoint hint provides some context but is not a substitute for a clear description of behavior and output. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more guidance is needed.

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 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., it does not explain pagination defaults or constraints). Since the schema fully documents parameters, 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 Company Insurances' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('Company Insurances') and action ('List'), but lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., paginated results, filtering options) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., 'list_company_insurances' vs. 'list_project_insurances' or other list tools). It is not tautological but remains 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'list_project_insurances' or 'show_company_insurance'). Without any usage context, the agent must infer from parameters alone.

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