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 mentions 'GET' in the API path, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief purpose statement and an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action, and the API path adds technical context without verbosity. However, the inclusion of the API path might be slightly redundant if the tool is well-integrated.

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 (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed for effective use.

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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 drawing areas' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('drawing areas'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. While it's not a tautology, it lacks specificity about what 'drawing areas' are or the listing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Drawings]' and an API path, but these don't offer explicit usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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