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 '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which implies permission requirements, but does not explicitly state authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The HTTP method 'GET' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed in the description.

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 action. However, the bracketed text and API endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but includes elements that may not add value beyond the structured fields.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Project Regions' are, the format of the returned list, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. For a list operation with three parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the three parameters (company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as pagination behavior or default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 Regions' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish what 'Project Regions' are or what listing entails beyond the obvious. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permissions but doesn't clarify the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools or contextual usage scenarios. The bracketed text suggests administrative context but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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