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 it's a GET operation (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if project_id is invalid. The endpoint reference adds some context but insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional endpoint and category information are concise but could be integrated more smoothly. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 simple read operation with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or how results relate to observations. Completeness is borderline for a tool that likely returns a list of assignable entities.

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 descriptions for project_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states 'List Observation Assignee options' which clearly indicates a listing operation for assignee options related to observations. However, it doesn't specify what these options are (e.g., users, roles, teams) or how they differ from similar tools like 'list_punch_list_assignee_options' or 'list_task_items_assignee_options' among the siblings.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Observations]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/observations/assignees', but these don't explain usage context, prerequisites, or differentiation from sibling tools that also list assignee options for other entities.

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