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 mentions 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) and includes pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page'), hinting at list behavior, but fails to describe critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's safe/destructive. The legacy tag suggests potential deprecation, but no further context is given, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes technical endpoint details that may not aid an AI agent. While not verbose, it wastes space on tautological elements and lacks a clear, informative first sentence. It could be more concise by eliminating repetition and focusing on actionable 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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Resources' entail, the return format, or behavioral constraints. The legacy tag hints at deprecation but without guidance on alternatives. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively, 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format details or usage examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra description.

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/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/resources' restates the tool name ('List Resources') and adds technical endpoint details, but does not specify what 'Resources' are (e.g., human resources, equipment, materials) or the verb's scope. It lacks a clear, distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like 'list_resources' (without versioning) or other list tools, making it vague and minimally informative beyond the name.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or distinctions from other list tools (e.g., 'list_resources' or 'list_schedule_resources' in siblings). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios, leading to potential misuse.

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