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, if it supports pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with parameters and no annotations.

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, consisting of a single line with the tool name and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks depth. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema by explaining behavior, return values, or error conditions. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining filter usage or pagination behavior. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without description enhancement.

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 Observations Response Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds '[Project Management/Observations] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/observations/response_logs', which provides API context but does not clearly specify the verb (list) and resource (response logs for observations) in a way that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_observation_items' or 'list_observation_item_response_logs'. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 exclusions, such as whether it requires specific permissions or relates to other observation tools. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation leaves 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.