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 mentions the HTTP method 'GET', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the implied read operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Schedules'). The additional context (category and endpoint) is relevant and efficiently included. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details).

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and endpoint but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error handling) and usage context. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema for operation.

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 10 parameters (e.g., filters, pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between filters or typical use cases. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Schedules', providing a specific action and target. It includes the context '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and the API endpoint 'GET /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/schedules', which adds technical specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other list tools like list_checklist_inspection_schedules), though the resource focus is clear.

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 (e.g., required permissions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., list_schedule_imports or other schedule-related tools). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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