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 mentions 'GET' (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), hinting at list behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains (e.g., array of signature objects). The description is minimal and leaves behavioral assumptions to the agent.

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 three elements: action, category, and endpoint. It's front-loaded with 'List Signatures' as the core purpose. However, the endpoint URL could be considered extraneous detail that doesn't aid the agent's understanding. The structure is efficient but could be more informative.

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 read operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'signatures' are in this context (e.g., digital approvals for timesheets), the response format, or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and list behavior, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pagination defaults or constraints). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't detract but also doesn't add value.

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 Signatures' states the basic verb and resource, but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what type of signatures (e.g., timesheet signatures) or what 'list' entails (pagination, filtering). The category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'timesheets/signatures' in the endpoint, but this is buried in the URL format rather than explicitly stated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id), exclusions, or sibling tools for similar operations. While the endpoint path implies it's for timesheet signatures within a project, this isn't stated clearly as usage context.

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