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 mentions 'List' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description lacks critical behavioral details like whether it's safe, what authentication is needed, or how results are structured.

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 brief but includes unnecessary technical details (the full API path) that don't aid an AI agent in tool selection. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but wastes space on implementation specifics. While not verbose, it could be more focused on agent-relevant information.

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 read operation with filtering parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'subtier waivers' are, the expected return format, or how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a tool with five parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone, with no added value from the description.

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 payments subtier waivers' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('payments subtier waivers') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools, which include many other list operations. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Payments] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/payments/subtier_waivers' adds technical details but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond what the name already implies.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other payment-related list tools). The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the implied action from the name.

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