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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/directory/filter_options/permission_templates', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Project Permission Templates'). The additional API path detail is relevant but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is efficiently structured.

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 of a list operation with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of permission templates), error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination limits. With no annotations and incomplete contextual guidance, it leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'page' for pagination). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 Permission Templates' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Project Permission Templates'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_permission_templates' or 'list_all_available_permission_templates_for_a_project'), leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or uniqueness.

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 access), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_permission_templates' or 'list_all_available_permission_templates_for_a_project', 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.