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 fails to mention that this is a read-only list operation (implied by 'GET' but not explicit), doesn't describe pagination behavior (though parameters exist), doesn't indicate authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The API path hint doesn't compensate for these critical omissions.

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 ('List drawings. [Project Management/Drawings] GET /rest/v1.1/drawing_areas/{drawing_area_id}/drawings') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide necessary context. The API path inclusion adds some technical detail but doesn't improve usability for an AI agent.

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?

For a list operation with 8 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'drawings' are in this domain, how results are structured, whether pagination is required, or what authentication context is needed. The API path hint doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps in a tool that likely returns complex data.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that drawing_area_id is required while others are optional filters), or provide usage examples. However, since schema coverage is complete, the 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 merely restates the tool name 'list_drawings_v1_1'. It lacks specificity about what 'drawings' means in this context (e.g., construction drawings, design documents) and doesn't distinguish this tool from any potential sibling list tools. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Drawings]' and API path, these don't clarify the core purpose beyond the name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (like needing a drawing_area_id), constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent is left with no usage context beyond what's implied by the name and parameters.

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