Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with the filtering parameters. The API endpoint format is included, but this doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what's implied by 'GET'.

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 - just three elements in a single line. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Hazards') and includes additional context efficiently. However, it could be more structured by separating the functional description from the technical endpoint details.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'hazard' represents in this context, what the response format looks like, or how pagination works (despite having page/per_page parameters). The API endpoint is included but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'filters__active' and 'all' interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states 'List Hazards' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (hazards), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/hazards', which adds some context but doesn't fully specify what 'list' entails compared to other list tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison. While the API endpoint suggests it's for listing hazards within a company, there's no indication of when this specific endpoint should be chosen over other hazard-related tools.

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