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 implies a read-only operation via 'GET' and 'List', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (though parameters 'page' and 'per_page' hint at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'default distribution' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, leaving key behaviors unspecified.

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: a brief purpose statement and an endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List RFI Default Distribution') and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by separating functional explanation from technical details, but it remains efficient.

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 (a list operation with pagination) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'RFI Default Distribution' is, what the output looks like, or how pagination works. The endpoint provides some context, but for a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should offer more guidance to the agent.

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 descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'default distribution' means in relation to 'project_id'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 RFI Default Distribution' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds a category '[Project Management/RFI]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/default_distribution', which provides technical context but does not clearly articulate what the tool does in user terms (e.g., what 'RFI Default Distribution' means or what is listed). It distinguishes from siblings by name but not by 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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other RFI or distribution tools). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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