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. It mentions a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify pagination behavior (via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, and there is no wasted verbiage. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or context upfront.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, fields), pagination defaults, error cases, and how filters interact. For a list operation with multiple filtering options, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect and how to use it 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 (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'filters__active' for status filtering). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining filter interactions or default values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Contributing Conditions'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Contributing Conditions' are (e.g., in incident management context) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contributing_behaviors' or 'list_contributing_condition_filter_options', making it vague in distinguishing its exact 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 mentions '[Project Management/Incidents]' as context but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_contributing_behaviors' or 'get_contributing_condition_filter_options'), leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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