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 mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and shows the API path, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters suggest pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The mention of 'GET' is helpful but insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise - just two parts: the tautological purpose statement and the API endpoint. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. However, the front-loading is poor as the first part adds little value; the more useful API endpoint information comes second.

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?

For a list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Payment Project Configurations' are, what fields are returned, the pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), or any constraints. The API endpoint provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it shows the API endpoint structure with {company_id} placeholder, which reinforces the required parameter. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide additional context about how search, page, and per_page interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 Payment Project Configurations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_payment_project_configurations'. It adds minimal value by specifying the API endpoint '[Construction Financials/Payments] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/projects', but doesn't clearly articulate what 'Payment Project Configurations' are or what specific resources are being listed. The description fails to distinguish this tool from its many sibling list tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 1,000 sibling tools including many other list operations, there's no indication of what makes this specific listing unique or when it should be selected. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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