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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' suggesting permission requirements, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, or response format. The HTTP method 'GET' is noted, but no further operational details are added.

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 inclusion of permission hints and HTTP endpoint adds context without unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than needed for an AI agent.

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 simple list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage in a real-world context.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('company's projects'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., 'list_projects', 'list_company_projects'), which are present in the sibling list, so it misses full 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?

The description provides minimal guidance with '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at required permissions, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools or context for selection is given.

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