Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 sentences, but the second sentence is a technical endpoint detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the bracketed text is somewhat cryptic. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 a list operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints (e.g., max per_page). For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed for 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 schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the required company_id or pagination parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 the action ('List') and resource ('Payments Beneficiaries'), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this lists all beneficiaries, active ones, or something else, and the bracketed '[Construction Financials/Payments]' adds minimal context. It distinguishes from siblings by name but not clearly by function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a payment), or compare it to other list or payment-related tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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