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 'GET' and pagination parameters, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the second sentence is technical (API path) and could be more user-friendly. No wasted words, but structure is minimal.

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, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'WBS Patterns' are, the return format, error cases, or typical response structure. For a list tool in a complex domain (Construction Financials), more context is needed for effective 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., pagination defaults) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('Company WBS Patterns'), but it's vague about what 'WBS Patterns' are (Work Breakdown Structure patterns). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_project_wbs_patterns' or 'list_company_wbs_segments', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., company access), comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_project_wbs_patterns'), or typical use cases. It's a bare statement without usage context.

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