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. It only states the action ('List') without indicating if this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any pagination behavior. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 extremely concise—just three words plus an API endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API endpoint detail, while potentially useful for debugging, doesn't add value for an AI agent and could be considered clutter.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Distribution Group' is in this context, what the output looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, more context is needed to use the tool effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'page' and 'per_page' interact with 'filters__search'). 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 'List Distribution Groups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Distribution Groups'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_distribution_groups_for_specifications_v2_1' or 'list_project_distribution_groups_v1_0', which could cause confusion about scope or context.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., company-level vs. project-level), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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