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 GET endpoint but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 with just one sentence and the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint detail may be redundant. There is no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what permission templates are, how results are structured, pagination details, and error cases. The endpoint path adds some technical context but does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage information.

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 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the required company_id or filtering options. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 'List permission templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('permission templates'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., company-level vs. project-level) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_permission_templates_for_a_company_user' or 'list_project_permission_templates', which reduces clarity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., company_id requirement), context (e.g., company-level templates), or exclusions. With many sibling list tools, this omission leaves the agent without direction.

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