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 behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Legacy' means for behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 another providing the endpoint and context. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' tag is ambiguous and could be more clearly integrated.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or what 'requested changes' entail. The 'Legacy' tag is unexplained, and without annotations, critical behavioral details are missing, making it inadequate for a list tool with multiple parameters.

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 the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'view' parameter's 'with_task' option further). 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 states the tool's purpose as 'List Requested Changes' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which clarifies it's a read operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'requested changes' are in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_requested_changes_for_a_schedule_or_a_task_v1_1', making it vague about scope.

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 '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' but doesn't explain what 'Legacy' implies or how it differs from the sibling tool 'list_requested_changes_for_a_schedule_or_a_task_v1_1'. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is stated.

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