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 for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/custom_field_metadata' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but it doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'metadata' includes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method hint.

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 very concise with just two parts: the purpose statement and the API endpoint. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed permission hint could be better integrated, and the overall structure is minimal but effective.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' returns, how pagination works (though parameters exist), or the relationship between company_id and project_id. The permission hint is vague, and without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose as 'List Custom Field Metadata' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools (like 'list_custom_field_definitions' or 'list_custom_fields_user_options' which appear in the sibling list), nor does it specify what 'metadata' entails beyond what's implied by the name. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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. While it mentions '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' which hints at permission context, it doesn't explain what makes this tool distinct from other list tools for custom fields or metadata. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are provided.

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