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 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_templates' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no templates exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The HTTP endpoint information is arguably extraneous for an AI agent but doesn't significantly harm conciseness. It's efficiently structured in a single sentence with bracketed categorization.

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?

For a list tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or relationship between filters. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter interactions or filtering logic.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'Project Checklist Templates', providing a specific action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type (checklist templates) and context (project), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_checklist_templates' or 'list_project_checklist_templates_v1_1'.

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 for project checklist templates, or differentiate from other listing tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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