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 implies a read-only list operation via 'GET', but does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'monitoring resources' entails. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 a single sentence with an API endpoint, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on redundant name restatement and low-value category/endpoint details. It could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and technical context.

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, no output schema, and a generic purpose, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'monitoring resources' are, the return format, or how pagination works. For a list tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Forecast start date...'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Monitoring Resources. [Construction Financials/Budget] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/monitoring_resources' restates the tool name ('List Monitoring Resources') without adding specificity. It includes a category hint ('Construction Financials/Budget') and API endpoint, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other list or monitoring tools). Without usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selection among similar tools.

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