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 Punch Items' and a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (suggested by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 parts: 'List Punch Items' and '[Project Management/Punch List] GET /rest/v1.0/punch_items'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the additional technical detail is brief. However, the second part could be more integrated or omitted if not adding value, but it does not waste space.

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 (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, pagination behavior, error handling, and usage context. While the schema covers inputs well, the description does not address the tool's overall behavior or integration, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 detailed descriptions for all 15 parameters in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Punch Items' states the action (list) and resource (punch items), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_punch_items_v1_1' or other list tools, and the inclusion of '[Project Management/Punch List] GET /rest/v1.0/punch_items' adds technical context but not functional distinction. It's vague about scope beyond the basic verb.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_punch_items_v1_1' or other filtering/list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., project context). Usage is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.

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