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 states 'List Project Job Titles' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits—such as pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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: 'List Project Job Titles. [Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/directory/filter_options/job_titles'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the API path detail might be extraneous for an agent. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but incomplete description, the context is insufficient. The description doesn't cover output format, pagination details, or error handling. For a list tool with pagination parameters, more completeness is needed to guide an agent 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 the schema, which is adequate since the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that page/per_page are optional for pagination).

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 Job Titles' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Project Job Titles'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague—it doesn't specify whether it lists all job titles in a project or filters them in some way, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_all_job_titles_in_the_company' or 'get_all_job_titles_belonging_to_a_group'.

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 (like needing a project_id), nor does it differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., 'list_all_job_titles_in_the_company'). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool.

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