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. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format might be. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the tautological name.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a tautological phrase and a bracketed context hint, which does not earn its place. A concise description would efficiently convey purpose and usage, but this lacks substance, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'Environmentals' are, how results are returned, pagination details, or any behavioral traits. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'incident_id' scopes the list). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Environmentals' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not explain what 'Environmentals' are in this context. The bracketed '[Project Management/Incidents]' provides minimal domain context but fails to define the action or resource.

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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant for filtering or other operations. It leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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