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 the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/locations') but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, but it includes redundant API endpoint details that add little value for tool selection. It could be more concise by omitting the endpoint or integrating it more meaningfully, though it's not overly verbose.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or how filters interact, which are critical for a list tool with many options. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool 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%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining filter interactions or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Project Locations'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_locations, list_project_locations_v1_1), which are not explicitly mentioned, so it misses full differentiation.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., project context), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_locations' or 'list_project_locations_v1_1', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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