Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a GET operation (implied read-only) and includes a domain tag, but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), filtering capabilities, sorting options, or any rate limits/permissions needed. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation support.

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 (one sentence with an API endpoint), but it is not front-loaded with actionable information. It wastes space on the tautological restatement of the name and includes an API path that is not directly useful for an AI agent. While brief, it lacks effective structure for tool selection.

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 incomplete. It does not explain the resource being listed ('item response sets'), the return format, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full scope and output expectations.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'company_id' as unique identifier, filters for ID, created_at, etc.). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate detail. 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 Item Response Sets. [Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/item/response_sets' restates the tool name ('List Item Response Sets') without adding meaningful clarification. It includes a domain hint and API endpoint, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'item response sets' are or what the tool actually does. This is tautological and minimally informative.

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 (like 'list_responses_in_the_specified_item_response_set' or 'create_item_response_set') or contextual prerequisites. Without usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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