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 'GET' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. The description lacks critical details for safe and effective use.

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 restatement of the name and an HTTP endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes space on obvious details (GET method) while omitting helpful context. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination, filtering logic, or relationship to incidents. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more behavioral and contextual details, which it does not.

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 descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified usage of filters like 'filters__active' or 'all'.

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 Harm Sources. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/harm_sources' restates the tool name ('List Harm Sources') and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('harm_sources') and HTTP method, but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'List' and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_hazards' or 'list_affliction_types'). The purpose is vague regarding what 'harm sources' are or the scope of listing.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., within incidents), or sibling tools like 'list_hazards' or 'list_affliction_types' that might serve similar purposes. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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