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 states 'List RFI Replies' and includes a REST endpoint hint ('GET'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (since 'page' and 'per_page' parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a list tool with pagination, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—just two words plus a REST endpoint hint. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List RFI Replies') and wastes no space. However, the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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's complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of reply objects), pagination handling, or error scenarios. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output info, this leaves significant gaps for an 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 all parameters documented in the schema (project_id, rfi_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 RFI Replies' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('RFI Replies'), which is a specific action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_rfis' or 'show_rfi_reply', leaving the scope and differentiation vague. It's adequate but lacks sibling context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an RFI ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'show_rfi_reply' (which might retrieve a single reply). It's a basic statement with no usage context.

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