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 indicates a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters in the schema, but the description does not explicitly state that it's a read-only list operation, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method hint.

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 includes the API endpoint path which adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity. The single sentence structure is efficient, though the bracketed context could be integrated 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?

Given the complexity of WBS segments in construction projects, the description is minimal. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there is no output schema to describe return values. The description lacks details on what the listed segments represent, their structure, or how they fit into the broader WBS, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List Project WBS Segments' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_wbs_codes' or 'list_project_wbs_task_codes', leaving the scope vague regarding what specifically is being listed (segments vs. codes vs. tasks).

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 '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' as context but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar listing tools for WBS components. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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