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/project_roles', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, 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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of '[Core/Project]' is ambiguous and adds minimal value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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's complexity (list operation with filtering/pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but lacks details on return format, error handling, or operational constraints. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps for effective agent 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as explaining filtering logic or pagination defaults. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding beyond the structured data.

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 tool's purpose: 'List Project Roles.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Project Roles'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_company_roles' or 'list_roles_for_a_company_user', which could cause confusion in selection.

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., needing a project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_company_roles'. This omission leaves 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.