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 mentions 'Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration,' which implies potential permission requirements, but doesn't explicitly state them. It also doesn't describe the behavior (e.g., pagination via page/per_page parameters, read-only nature, or any rate limits). The HTTP method 'GET' is noted but adds little value beyond what's implicit in 'List.'

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 inefficient. 'List links' is redundant, and the bracketed text and HTTP endpoint add clutter without improving clarity. It's front-loaded with the tautology, and the additional details don't earn their place by enhancing understanding. However, it's not overly verbose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'links' are in this context, what the output looks like, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions. For a list operation with three parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how page and per_page interact) or provide usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 links' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It doesn't specify what kind of links (e.g., project links, document links) or provide any meaningful context about the resource being listed. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]' hints at access requirements but doesn't define the tool's purpose.

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. While it mentions 'Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration,' this is unclear about prerequisites or context. No sibling tools are referenced for differentiation, and there's no indication of when this specific list operation is appropriate.

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