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. The description only states it's a list operation and includes the HTTP method (GET), which implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned data takes. For a tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that state the purpose and include the API endpoint. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from slightly more context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose immediately. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.

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 (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what observation items are, what data is returned, how pagination works (though page/per_page parameters exist), or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this many filtering options and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return format and typical use cases.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to 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 Items' which clearly indicates a listing/retrieval operation on observation items. However, it doesn't specify what observation items are or distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_observations_response_logs, list_observation_types, etc.). The category tag '[Project Management/Observations]' provides some context but doesn't fully differentiate the tool's specific scope.

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. There are many sibling tools that also list observation-related data (list_observation_item_response_logs, list_observation_types, etc.), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other observation listing tools.

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