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 /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/configurable_field_sets' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 category, another showing the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the second sentence with the raw endpoint could be more user-friendly 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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool as a list operation with an API endpoint, but lacks details on response format, pagination, or error handling. For a list tool with many parameters, more context would be helpful, but it meets the bare minimum.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (like explaining what 'configurable field sets' are or how filters work). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose as 'List Configurable Field Sets' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like 'list_configurable_field_sets_company_v2_0' or other list operations). The description is adequate but lacks sibling distinction.

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 includes a category tag '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which hints at administrative context, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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