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 mentions 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what 'List Schedule Imports' entails behaviorally (e.g., pagination, filtering, return format). The endpoint hint is minimal and lacks operational 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 concise but under-specified. It consists of a tautological name restatement, a category label, and an endpoint. While not verbose, it lacks essential explanatory content, making it inefficient in conveying purpose. The structure is simple but fails to front-load useful information.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Schedule Imports' are, what the listing returns, or how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a list tool with three parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior and output.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description does not compensate or add value, but it also doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.

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 Schedule Imports' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category label '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/schedule_integration', but these do not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., what 'Schedule Imports' are, what is listed). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also list operations.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with other list or schedule-related tools in the sibling list. 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.