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 of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), hinting at paginated output. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. The endpoint path suggests it's company-specific, but behavioral details are sparse.

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 a tautological title, a bracketed context hint, and the endpoint path. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential explanatory content. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name but doesn't efficiently convey purpose or usage.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'segment items' are, how they relate to the Work Breakdown Structure, what the output contains, or any error conditions. For a list operation with filtering parameters and pagination, more context is needed to guide the agent 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between segment_id and segment_item_list_id, or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes no extra value.

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 Segment Items' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds minimal clarification with the bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and the endpoint path, but doesn't specify what 'segment items' are or what the list operation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_company_segment_items' vs 'list_project_segment_items', there's no differentiation beyond the 'company' scope.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools (like 'list_project_segment_items' or 'list_company_wbs_segments') that might be relevant. The agent receives no usage context beyond the endpoint path.

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