Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' (implying read-only) and 'Legacy', hinting at deprecated status, but does not disclose critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 (one line) but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes technical details (HTTP method, endpoint) without clear user benefit. While not verbose, it lacks effective communication of purpose or 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'resources' are, the return format, pagination behavior, or legacy implications. For a list operation with pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the three parameters. 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 Resources. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.0/resources' restates the tool name ('List Resources') without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions a legacy context and HTTP method, but does not clarify what 'resources' are (e.g., personnel, equipment, materials) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_resources_v1_1'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_resources_v1_1', 'list_all_resources_for_a_single_project'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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