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 mentions 'List projects' and an API endpoint, but fails to disclose key behaviors: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'GET'), requires pagination (via page/per_page parameters), supports extensive filtering, and returns a list format. Without annotations, these traits should be explicitly stated.

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 short phrases: 'List projects. [Core/Portfolio] GET /rest/v1.0/projects'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API endpoint detail, while potentially useful for developers, adds minimal value for an AI agent without further context.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It implies listing with filtering via the API context but does not elaborate on usage or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'List projects' states the basic verb and resource but is vague. It lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all projects in a company) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_projects_v1_1' or 'list_company_projects', leaving ambiguity about differences.

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 '[Core/Portfolio] GET /rest/v1.0/projects', which hints at an API endpoint but does not explain context, prerequisites, or when to choose this over similar list tools in the sibling set.

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