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 implies a read-only list operation via 'GET', but does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'possible_inspectors' means (e.g., available vs. assigned). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief but under-specified—it wastes no words but fails to convey essential information. The structure includes the tool name, category, and API endpoint, but lacks a clear purpose statement. While concise, it is not effectively front-loaded with actionable details for an AI agent.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, what 'inspectors' entails, or how pagination works. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context to use the tool effectively, making this description inadequate for a list operation with pagination.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain how these parameters affect the listing or their interplay. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 'List Inspectors' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Inspections]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/checklist/possible_inspectors', it lacks specificity about what 'inspectors' are (e.g., personnel, roles, or entities) and what resource is being listed. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), constraints, or related tools for filtering or searching inspectors. With many sibling tools (e.g., list_assignee_filter_options, list_possible_assignees_project_v2_0), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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