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/cost_codes', implying a read-only HTTP operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's safe for frequent use. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed context and HTTP endpoint could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids unnecessary words but misses an opportunity to add critical usage guidance in a concise manner.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or how filtering works. For a list operation with multiple filters and pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent 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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'filters__id' or 'view' affect results, or clarify relationships between 'project_id' and 'sub_job_id'. 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 Cost Codes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Cost Codes'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_cost_codes_for_timesheets' or 'list_project_cost_codes'. The bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' adds domain specificity but doesn't fully clarify the tool's unique purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_cost_codes_for_timesheets' and 'list_project_cost_codes', the description fails to indicate whether this tool lists all cost codes globally, per project, or with specific filters, leaving the agent without usage context.

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