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 the tool is a 'GET' operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose other traits like pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral 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: the core purpose and additional context (category and API endpoint). It is front-loaded with the main action, and the extra details are brief. However, the API endpoint could be considered extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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's complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and HTTP method but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error cases. The schema covers inputs well, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent 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., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining pagination behavior or constraints. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List drawing uploads.' It specifies the resource (drawing uploads) and the action (list), which is straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drawing_uploads_v1_1' or 'list_drawings', leaving some ambiguity about scope or versioning.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Drawings]' and an API endpoint, but these do not explain usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_drawing_uploads_v1_1' or 'list_drawings'.

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