Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('List') and includes a technical endpoint ('[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/directory/filter_options/state_codes'), but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, paginated (implied by 'page'/'per_page' in schema but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The endpoint hint is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing 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 concise but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a technical endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on redundant naming. While brief, it lacks informative content, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of 'state codes', expected output format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it offers minimal actionable 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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships like why 'country_code' is required or how 'page'/'per_page' affect output. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters 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 'List Project State Codes' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish what 'state codes' refer to (e.g., administrative divisions, status codes) or how they relate to the project. Compared to siblings like 'list_project_country_codes', it provides minimal differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for filtering or selection), or sibling tools like 'list_project_country_codes' for related data. Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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