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 pagination implicitly via the API path but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it describe rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. The description lacks behavioral details 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and includes technical details (API path). It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of '[Core/Directory]' and the API path may be slightly verbose for a pure description, but it does not waste space.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a list operation with pagination. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how 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%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Project Cost Codes'), which matches the tool name. It is specific about what is being listed, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_cost_codes' or 'list_project_wbs_codes') beyond the resource name. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory]' and the API path adds technical context but doesn't enhance the functional purpose.

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, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_cost_codes' or 'list_project_wbs_codes'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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