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. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no drawing sets exist. For a list operation with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 with just one sentence plus endpoint information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint path could be considered extraneous information that doesn't help the AI agent select the tool.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'drawing set' is in this context, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. For a list operation with filtering parameters, more context is needed.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 tool's purpose as 'List drawing sets' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drawings' or 'list_drawing_areas' that might be related. The description is adequate but lacks sibling 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The bracketed '[Project Management/Drawings]' and endpoint path provide some context but no explicit usage guidelines.

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