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 only states 'List drawing tiles' and includes a REST endpoint, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format is, or any pagination behavior. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, implying a safe read, but this is not explicitly stated. The description lacks essential behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('List drawing tiles'). The additional context (category and REST endpoint) is provided efficiently without unnecessary elaboration. However, the description is overly terse and could benefit from slightly more explanatory content to improve clarity.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'drawing tiles' are, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the resource and expected results. The current description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (project_id, drawing_revision_id, page, per_page). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description meets this baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tiles' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'drawing tiles' are or what resource is being listed, and it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_drawings' or 'list_drawing_areas'. The inclusion of a category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and a REST endpoint provides some context but does not meaningfully enhance the purpose statement.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent is left with no information about appropriate contexts or exclusions for using this tool.

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