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' (implying a read-only operation) and includes 'GET' in the endpoint, which suggests non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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—two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the API endpoint for technical context. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of severity levels with fields), pagination behavior, filtering capabilities (beyond parameter names), or error handling. For a list operation with multiple filters and sorting, more context is needed to 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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path hint ('/rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/severity_levels'), which implies company_id is required for context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or usage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Incident Severity Levels'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It includes the API endpoint context which reinforces the scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like 'list_incidents' or 'list_incident_statuses'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a valid company_id), typical use cases, or how it relates to other incident-related tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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