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 a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination limits (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core function, though the endpoint detail could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. No wasted words, but slightly verbose due to the endpoint inclusion.

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 tool with pagination and limits (implied by parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error cases, or operational constraints (e.g., what 'terms' are, how results are structured). The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable 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 (e.g., 'Drawing Revisions to fetch extracted terms for. Limited to 50 revisions per call'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 revision terms' states the action (list) and resource (drawing revision terms), which is clear. However, it lacks specificity about what 'terms' are (e.g., extracted text, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drawing_revision_terms_v1_1', leaving ambiguity about version differences.

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 API endpoint, but this does not inform the agent about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_drawing_revision_terms_v1_1').

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