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 states 'List Gps Positions' and includes an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), discuss pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the HTTP method suggests.

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: a tautological purpose statement and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded but under-specified, wasting no words yet failing to provide necessary context. The structure is efficient, but the content lacks substance, making it more sparse than optimally concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the nature of 'Gps Positions' (e.g., tracking data, location records), expected output format, or how filters interact. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to provide essential context for the agent to understand the tool's role and results.

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 documentation (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, filters for IDs, created_by_id, updated_at, and pagination controls). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained filter usage or pagination defaults.

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 Gps Positions' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/gps_positions', but these do not clarify the specific action or resource scope beyond the obvious. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_equipment, list_materials) or explain what 'Gps Positions' represent in this system.

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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., list_equipment, list_locations), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios for listing GPS positions.

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