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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description is completely lacking in this regard.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified and fails to provide essential information. The single sentence 'List meetings' is too brief and does not earn its place by adding value. The additional text '[Project Management/Meetings] GET /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings' is technical detail that doesn't enhance understanding for an AI agent.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage context. For a list operation with filtering and pagination options, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 meetings' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'list_meetings_v1_1'. It does not specify what resource is being listed (e.g., meetings within a project) or distinguish it from sibling tools, though the context suggests it's for meetings in a project. This is vague 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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the input schema alone, which is insufficient.

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