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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'membership'. The HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path are included but don't add meaningful behavioral context.

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 - just the tool name plus API endpoint details. While efficient, it's arguably too minimal given the lack of other guidance. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from additional context.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'project memberships' are, what data is returned, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The API endpoint information adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any contextual information about parameter usage.

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 Memberships' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Project Memberships'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that are create/update/delete operations, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools for project resources.

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 available (including other list operations), there's no indication of when this specific listing is appropriate versus other project membership tools or general listing tools.

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