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 states 'List Project Trades' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only list operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination details (implied by page/per_page params), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 parts: a clear action phrase and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the endpoint adds technical context without unnecessary detail. However, it could be more structured by separating usage notes from the core description, but it avoids verbosity.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'trades' entails, the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with three parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it inadequate despite the good schema coverage.

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 descriptions for project_id, page, and per_page. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain trade filtering or output format). Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Trades' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Project Trades'), but it is vague about what 'trades' refers to (e.g., trade categories, contractors, or something else). It does not distinguish from sibling tools, as many other list tools exist (e.g., list_trades, list_project_tools_v1_0), but the purpose is understandable though basic.

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 mentions '[Core/Directory] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/directory/filter_options/trades', which hints at a directory context, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for selection.

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