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 Lien Waivers' and includes a URL-like endpoint, which implies a read operation but does not clarify if it's safe, paginated, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description lacks essential behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 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 with two short parts, but it is not front-loaded with critical information. The first part is a tautology, and the second part includes a URL-like endpoint that may not be helpful for an AI agent. While it avoids verbosity, it under-specifies key details, reducing its effectiveness despite 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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output format, pagination details, or error handling. With no annotations and a sparse description, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., project_id, invoice_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 Lien Waivers' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Lien Waivers') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and does not distinguish it from potential sibling tools, such as those retrieving specific lien waivers or filtered lists. The bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Invoices]' is vague and not integrated into the purpose statement.

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, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools present (e.g., other list or retrieval tools), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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