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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (no output schema), or any rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence plus an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path adds clutter without explanatory value for an AI agent. It's efficient but could be more structured.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return type, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page but not described), or filtering logic. For a list operation with multiple filters, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param details in 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 PDF template configs' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource (PDF template configs) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., list_pdf_template_configs is among many 'list_' tools). It's vague about what 'configs' entail, making it a tautology of the name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. Without usage instructions, an agent must infer from parameters alone, which is insufficient.

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