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. It implies a read-only list operation via 'GET', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'default distribution' entails. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method, leaving critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 parts: a restated name and endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on redundant name restatement. The endpoint information is useful for context. Overall, it is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 a list operation with pagination and filtering parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Default Distribution Members' are, the return format, or how pagination works. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents all four parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 Default Distribution Members' restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Inspections]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/default_distribution', but does not specify what 'Default Distribution Members' are (e.g., users, groups, roles) or what resource is being listed. It lacks a clear verb-resource distinction, making it vague compared to siblings like 'list_default_distribution_members_for_specifications_v2_1'.

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 prerequisites (e.g., project context), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'list_punch_item_default_distribution_list' or 'list_observation_default_distribution_members'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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