Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List RFQs' and includes an HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify pagination behavior (though parameters like 'page' and 'per_page' hint at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes an RFQ. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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: 'List RFQs.' and '[Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/rfqs'. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the second part adds API context that may be redundant. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured for clarity.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or error handling, and relies solely on the input schema. For a list tool with filtering parameters, more context on behavior and output is needed to be complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', 'filters__status' with enum values). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents inputs.

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 RFQs. [Construction Financials/Commitments] GET /rest/v1.0/rfqs' restates the tool name ('list_rfqs') and adds minimal context with the category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and HTTP method. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('RFQs'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools or provide specific scope beyond what the name implies, making it vague and tautological.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools (e.g., other list or search tools for RFQs). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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