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 mentions 'List' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The endpoint hint suggests a REST call but lacks operational details.

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 wastes no words, though the inclusion of the REST endpoint adds some technical detail that may not be essential for an AI agent. Overall, it is efficiently structured in a single sentence.

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 tool with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what WBS patterns are, the format of the returned list, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a list tool with pagination, more context is needed for 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format constraints or usage examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 WBS Patterns' restates the tool name with minimal addition. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'Project WBS Patterns' but lacks specificity about what WBS patterns are or what listing entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations (e.g., 'list_project_wbs_codes', 'list_project_wbs_segments').

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 a context tag '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and a REST endpoint, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_project_wbs_codes' or 'list_project_wbs_segments'.

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