Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List drawings' and includes an API endpoint hint, but fails to describe key traits like whether it's a read-only operation, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single sentence and an API endpoint hint, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more front-loaded by explicitly stating the tool's purpose upfront rather than relying on the endpoint for context.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of drawing objects), error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a list operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'drawing_area_id' and 'project_id' interact). However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 drawings' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not differentiate from sibling tools, such as 'list_drawings_v1_1' or 'list_drawing_areas', making it vague about what exactly is being listed.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Sibling tools like 'list_drawing_areas' or 'list_drawings_v1_1' are not referenced for differentiation.

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