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 mentions 'GET' and pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), implying a read-only, paginated list operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if 'project_id' is invalid. 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 functional statement and an API path. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the API path is redundant for tool selection and could be considered clutter, though it doesn't significantly harm readability.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, fields), error conditions, or usage examples. The agent must rely heavily on the schema and inferred behavior, making this inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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 does not add any semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'project_id' context or pagination defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description provides no extra parameter insights.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('Drawing Disciplines'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drawing_disciplines_v1_1' or other list tools, and the inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but not functional clarity. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what drawing disciplines are or the scope.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_drawing_disciplines_v1_1'). Usage is implied only by the name and API path, leaving the agent to infer based on parameters.

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