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. It mentions 'GET' (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters in the schema, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe, non-destructive, or describe rate limits, permissions, or return format. The legacy tag hints at potential deprecation but isn't elaborated.

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 includes redundant information (the API path is less helpful for an AI agent). It's front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on technical details that don't aid tool selection. Could be more streamlined for clarity.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Lookaheads' are, the return format, or behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a list tool with 3 parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 (project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so baseline 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate or add value.

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 Lookaheads. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookaheads' states the action ('List') and resource ('Lookaheads'), but is vague about what 'Lookaheads' are. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the legacy API path, but lacks clarity on the resource's meaning.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a legacy tag and API path, implying it might be outdated, but doesn't specify alternatives or contexts for use. Sibling tools include other list operations, but no explicit comparison is provided.

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