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 the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

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. It includes the endpoint path, which is relevant but could be considered extraneous. The structure is efficient, though it could benefit from separating functional description from implementation details.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, pagination, error cases, and how filtering parameters interact. For a list operation with many options, 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 documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List Project Segment Items' and provides context with '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]', which clarifies the domain. However, it lacks specific differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., other list_* tools) and does not specify the verb's scope beyond 'List'.

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 prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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