Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List Project Templates' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), what authentication is required, or any rate limits. The endpoint hint suggests a GET request, but without explicit safety assurances, the description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise—just two phrases—with zero redundant information. It front-loads the core action ('List Project Templates') and includes the API endpoint as supplementary detail. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks necessary explanatory context for effective tool use.

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 simplicity (list operation with pagination) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. While the schema covers inputs, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's full operational scope and limitations.

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 schema (company_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful semantic context.

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 Templates' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It does not specify what 'list' means operationally (e.g., retrieve, fetch, enumerate) or clarify the resource scope beyond the name. While it includes an API endpoint '[Core/Project] GET /rest/v1.0/project_templates', this is technical detail rather than a clear purpose statement. It lacks specificity compared to siblings like 'list_projects' or 'list_project_checklist_templates'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., company context), differentiate from similar list operations (e.g., 'list_projects'), or indicate any constraints. With numerous sibling tools for listing various resources, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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