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 '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' and 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/programs', hinting at authentication needs and HTTP method, but does not explicitly state required permissions, whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implicit HTTP GET.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief purpose statement and technical endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List programs'), though the technical details could be better integrated. The structure is efficient but lacks explanatory depth.

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 simple list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'programs' are, the expected output format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The technical endpoint hint is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no structured output guidance.

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 (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination defaults or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 programs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'programs' are in this context, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., list_projects, list_company_users). The description lacks a clear verb-resource combination beyond the obvious.

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 admin role implied by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), context for listing programs, or any sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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