Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which implies permission requirements, but doesn't explicitly state required roles or access levels. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), rate limits, or what the output looks like (no output schema).

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 includes the HTTP method and endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/roles'), which is redundant with tool naming conventions. The permission hint is useful but could be more explicit. It's front-loaded but lacks completeness.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of role objects), pagination behavior (though schema hints), or error conditions. For a list tool with 4 parameters and no structured output info, more context 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (company_id, filters__users_only, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the effect of filters__users_only or pagination defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Company Roles'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Company' roles, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_company_users' or 'list_project_roles' beyond the resource name.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at permissions but doesn't clarify prerequisites or context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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