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 'List Correspondences' and an API endpoint, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, or any pagination behavior beyond what's implied by the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 domain hint and API endpoint add context without excessive verbosity. However, the API endpoint could be considered technical detail that might not be necessary for an AI agent's understanding.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'correspondences' are, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. For a list tool with pagination parameters, more context about response format and usage would be helpful. The API endpoint provides some structure but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the API endpoint path which implies project_id and bid_package_id are required for context, but doesn't explain their relationship or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 lacks specificity about what 'correspondences' are in this context. It includes a bracketed domain hint '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and the API endpoint, which adds some context, but doesn't clearly distinguish this from other list tools or explain the resource scope beyond the endpoint path.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_correspondences_company). The API endpoint suggests it's project-specific, but this isn't explicitly stated as usage guidance.

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