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 states 'List project insurances' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it returns a summary or full details. The description adds no 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 with 'List project insurances.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the inclusion of '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/insurances' is technical detail that may clutter without adding user-facing value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'insurances' entails, the return format, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters and complex sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure the agent can 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining the 'view' enum options ('default' vs 'extended') or pagination defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 project insurances' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('project insurances'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all insurances or filtered) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_company_insurances' or 'sync_project_insurances', which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_insurances', 'sync_project_insurances'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The minimal description fails to help an agent choose appropriately among similar tools.

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