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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List Property Damages') and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but fails to describe key traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, though the endpoint information could be considered redundant in some contexts.

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 (7 parameters, filtering, sorting, pagination) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, pagination handling, or error conditions, which are critical for a list operation with multiple filters. The endpoint hint adds some context but insufficient for full agent 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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 Property Damages' with a category hint '[Project Management/Incidents]', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_incidents' or 'list_property_damages' with different scopes, making it vague in differentiation.

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 scoping to incidents via the 'incident_id' parameter in the schema, but the description itself lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named sibling alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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