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 states 'GET' (implying read-only) and mentions 'async_operations', but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of operation objects, pagination behavior, error conditions). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 (one sentence) but poorly structured. It front-loads with 'List Operations' (tautological) and buries the key term 'async_operations' at the end. The bracketed text and HTTP method clutter without adding value. While brief, it fails to prioritize useful information for an AI agent.

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 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'async_operations' are, what the return format is, or any behavioral context. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, the description should at least hint at the resource type and usage, but it leaves the agent guessing.

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 all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, filters, pagination). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the required company_id or filtering capabilities. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately compensates.

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 Operations. [Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/async_operations' restates the tool name ('List Operations') without adding specificity. It mentions 'async_operations' but doesn't clarify what these operations are (e.g., background jobs, tasks, processes) or what resource is being listed. The bracketed text and HTTP method are technical details that don't enhance purpose clarity for an AI agent.

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. While sibling tools include many 'list_' tools (e.g., list_operations_v2_0, list_activities_v2_0, list_calendars_v2_0), the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or indicate prerequisites like company admin access. The bracketed '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permissions but isn't explicit usage guidance.

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