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. The description only states 'List Custom Field Sections' and includes an HTTP method (GET), which implies a read-only operation. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 short phrases, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded. The first phrase is a tautology, and the second ('[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] GET /rest/v1.0/custom_fields_sections') is cryptic and does not effectively communicate purpose or usage. While brief, it wastes space on unclear elements rather than providing helpful information.

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 of the tool (a list operation with pagination) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Custom Field Sections' are, what the output format is, or how pagination works. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be usable by an 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 descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra clarity.

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 Custom Field Sections' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling list tools (e.g., list_custom_field_definitions, list_custom_field_lov_entries). The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' is unclear and does not clarify the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the numerous sibling tools (over 1,000), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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