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 a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'List' entails (e.g., returns all items or filtered). The description adds minimal 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 parts: the action and the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the bracketed context feels slightly tacked on, and it could be more structured, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination details, or error handling. For a list operation with filtering parameters, more context on behavior and output 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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying listing with possible filtering (from the endpoint). It doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist due to high schema coverage, meeting the baseline.

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 Contributing Behaviors' states the verb and resource, but it's vague about what 'Contributing Behaviors' are and lacks specificity. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' provides some context but doesn't fully clarify the domain. It distinguishes from siblings by not being a create/update/delete tool, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. Usage is implied by the 'List' action, but no specific scenarios or exclusions are stated.

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