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 'List Responses' and an API endpoint, without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not described), or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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: the tool name and an API endpoint with a category tag. It is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). There is no wasted text, but it is overly terse, bordering on under-specification.

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 does not explain the tool's purpose clearly, lacks behavioral context, and provides no guidance on usage or output. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so it does not compensate or add meaning. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 Responses. [Project Management/Inspections] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses' restates the tool name ('List Responses') and adds a category tag and API endpoint, but does not clearly explain what 'responses' are or what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination beyond the name, making it vague about the tool's function.

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 any context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (e.g., other list or response-related tools), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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