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 only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but does not mention pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' params), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 13 parameters.

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: a brief purpose statement and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). There is no wasted text, though it under-specifies the tool's function.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'Near Misses' are, how filtering works, pagination behavior, return format, or error cases. For a list tool with many filters, this leaves the agent poorly informed about how to use it 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%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'Near Misses' semantics or filter interactions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Near Misses. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses' restates the tool name ('List Near Misses') and adds a category and HTTP method, but it lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings. It does not explain what 'Near Misses' are or what the tool actually does beyond listing them, making it vague and tautological.

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 mentions a category ('Project Management/Incidents') but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_incidents', 'list_near_misses' itself), there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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