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 states 'List Departments' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), disclose permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but behavioral details are lacking for a tool with no annotation support.

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 to the point: 'List Departments. [Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/departments'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes technical details efficiently. While it could be more informative, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., department details), how pagination works, or any error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 parameters 'page', 'per_page', and 'company_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it doesn't mention any parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Departments' states the basic action (list) and resource (departments), which is clear but minimal. It includes the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/departments', which adds technical context but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools or specify scope beyond listing. This is adequate but vague on what exactly is listed.

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 mentions an API endpoint but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool relationships. With many sibling tools present, the lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate application.

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