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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The technical endpoint information adds minimal behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise at just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly, though the second sentence contains technical endpoint information that may not be necessary for an AI agent. There's no wasted verbiage, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination model (implied by page/per_page), how filters combine, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. The technical endpoint reference doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of filter usage, or clarify how multiple filters interact. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 states 'List Direct Cost Items' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (direct cost items), providing basic purpose clarity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar listing tools among the many siblings, and the additional text '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs' is more technical endpoint information than helpful functional 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. With 10 parameters including filtering capabilities, there's no indication of when filtering is appropriate versus other listing tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond what's implied by the required project_id parameter.

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