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. It mentions a POST method, which suggests a write operation, but 'List' in the name implies a read operation—this is contradictory and confusing. The description does not clarify whether this is a safe read, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. With no annotations and contradictory signals, behavioral transparency is poor.

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 restatement of the name and an endpoint path. However, it includes redundant information (the name) and lacks structured explanation of functionality. It is front-loaded but under-specified, making it efficient but incomplete. The endpoint path adds technical detail but does not enhance clarity 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of bank details), any behavioral traits (like side effects from POST), or error conditions. For a tool with two required parameters and potential complexity in payments/disbursements context, the description lacks necessary completeness for effective agent 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 descriptions for both parameters (company_id and payeeExternalIds). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of payeeExternalIds or format examples. However, since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Payee Bank Details. [Construction Financials/Payments] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/disbursements/payee_bank_details' restates the tool name ('List Payee Bank Details') and adds an endpoint path, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve bank details for payees, filter by external IDs). It distinguishes from siblings by context (payments/disbursements) but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation.

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 '[Construction Financials/Payments]' which hints at context, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or sibling tool comparisons. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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