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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List Inspection Item References' and includes an endpoint path, which implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the implied action.

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: the purpose statement and the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the purpose statement is vague. There is no wasted text, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'Inspection Item References' are, the return format, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. The endpoint path hints at context but does not compensate for the lack of output schema or annotations.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, including required project_id and inspection_id, filter options, sorting, and pagination. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 Inspection Item References' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieve, fetch, enumerate) or what 'Inspection Item References' are. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' and endpoint path provide some context but do not define the tool's purpose 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. It does not mention any sibling tools or contextual scenarios for its use. The endpoint path implies it's part of a project/inspection hierarchy, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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