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. The description mentions 'GET' (implying a read-only operation) and includes an API path, but does not clarify critical behaviors such as pagination handling (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The bracketed '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permission needs but is vague.

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 title followed by API metadata. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential context that would help an AI agent understand the tool's purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name but does not effectively communicate usage or behavior.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'schedule resources' are, what the output format looks like, or how pagination works (though parameters imply it). For a list operation with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the returned data and operational constraints.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company' for company_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not compensate for any gaps or explain interactions between parameters like page and filters__name.

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 Resources' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'list_schedule_resources' without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb or resource definition, and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling list tools (e.g., list_resources, list_schedules_v2_0). The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/schedule/resources' provides API details but does not clarify the tool's functional purpose.

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. With numerous sibling list tools (e.g., list_resources, list_schedules_v2_0), there is no indication of what makes 'schedule resources' distinct or when this specific listing is appropriate. The API path implies company-level access but offers no explicit usage context or prerequisites.

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