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 states 'List Materials' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The endpoint hint suggests it's a REST API call, but without annotations, the description lacks critical behavioral details like response format or error handling.

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 parts: 'List Materials' and '[Project Management/Field Productivity] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/materials'. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first part is redundant, and the second part, while useful, is not front-loaded with actionable guidance. It avoids waste but fails to provide sufficient detail for a tool with three parameters.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Materials' are, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination details), or any error conditions. For a list operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, making this description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain how 'page' and 'per_page' interact or default values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context.

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 Materials' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not specify what 'Materials' refers to (e.g., construction materials, project resources) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_materials' (if any existed in the sibling list, but none are named similarly). The bracketed '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds some context but is vague. This lacks the specific verb+resource detail needed for a clear 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. It does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison. The sibling tool list includes many 'list_' tools (e.g., 'list_all_materials', 'list_materials' is not present, but tools like 'list_all_materials' exist), but the description fails to differentiate this tool from them. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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