Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'List Incidents' with an HTTP GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), filtering capabilities (via numerous 'filters__*' parameters), sorting options, or potential rate limits. The description is minimal and misses critical operational context.

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 very concise—just one sentence with the tool name, category, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, but it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (19 parameters). While efficient, it could benefit from a bit more context without losing 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 incomplete. It lacks information on behavior (pagination, filtering), output format, error handling, and usage context. For a list operation with rich filtering, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to effectively invoke the tool.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'per_page' defaults, filter formats). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the extensive filtering options. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to highlight key parameters like 'filters__query' for search.

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 the tool's purpose as 'List Incidents' with a category '[Project Management/Incidents]' and an HTTP method and path. This is clear but lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered retrieval) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_incident_alerts' or 'list_incident_action_types', which are also list operations. It's adequate but vague on scope.

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_incident_alerts', 'list_incident_action_types'), it fails to specify that this tool is for listing incident records themselves, not related entities. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage unclear.

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