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 states 'List images' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. The description is too sparse for a tool with 19 parameters and no output schema.

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 two phrases—with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List images') and includes technical context. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or domain context beyond a vague tag. For a list operation with extensive filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it 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%, so the schema documents all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 images' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions '[Project Management/Photos] GET /rest/v1.0/images', which provides some API context but doesn't clarify what specific resource is being listed (e.g., project images, photo attachments) or distinguish it from sibling tools. This is minimal 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_attachments', 'list_project_folders_and_files'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The mention of 'Project Management/Photos' hints at a domain but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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