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. It mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with 12 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence with the core purpose first, followed by domain context and API endpoint. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more polished by integrating the bracketed context more smoothly.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or typical use cases. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error or external documentation.

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 already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Project WBS codes'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on WBS codes specifically, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_wbs_codes_v2_0' or 'list_wbs_codes_filter_options_v2_0'.

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 includes the API endpoint but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools that might serve similar purposes.

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