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 RFIs' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it supports pagination (implied by parameters but not stated), what the output format is, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'List RFIs' fails to convey necessary information, and the appended API path '[Project Management/RFI] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis' is useful but not integrated into a coherent description. The structure lacks front-loaded clarity, making it inefficient for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like the tool's role in the system (e.g., primary listing vs. filtered searches), expected output format, or error handling. For a list operation with many filtering options, more guidance is needed to help the agent 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%, meaning all 19 parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or default behaviors). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.

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 RFIs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource (RFIs) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_rfis' or 'download_rfis_list', which could have overlapping purposes. This minimal statement fails to provide meaningful context about what the tool does.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues (e.g., compared to filtered search tools or sibling tools like 'list_recycled_rfis'). The agent is left without any usage direction, which is critical given the many sibling tools available.

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