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 states 'List Correspondences' and includes an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions needed, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the implied read operation.

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 action. The bracketed context and endpoint are additional but not excessive. However, the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured API information, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'correspondences' are, the return format, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between company_id and bid_package_id, or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does 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 'List Correspondences' states the verb and resource, but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. The bracketed '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' adds some context, but doesn't specify what 'correspondences' are or how this differs from similar list tools. The HTTP endpoint provides technical detail but doesn't clarify purpose for an AI agent.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint path alone, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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