Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. The endpoint hint adds minimal behavioral context.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes the endpoint which adds some value but wastes space on tautological phrasing. The structure is not front-loaded with essential information, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex sibling environment, more context is needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between rfq_id, project_id, and contract_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 RFQ Quotes' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the endpoint '[Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{rfq_id}/quotes', which provides some context but doesn't specify what the tool does beyond listing quotes. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools or explain the resource scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for RFQ quotes, or any exclusions. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.

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