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 states it's a list operation (GET), implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The endpoint hint suggests it's a REST call, but no further context is given. The description is insufficient for a tool with 4 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: the core purpose and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured API info, but it doesn't waste space. It could be more structured with clearer separation of concerns.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'terms' are, the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use. The API endpoint hint is insufficient for full understanding.

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 the parameters (project_id, specification_section_ids, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'List specification section terms' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It adds '[Project Management/Specifications]' and the API endpoint, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_specification_section_terms_v1_1'). It's vague about what 'terms' are and doesn't explain the scope beyond the endpoint.

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 mentions the API endpoint but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_specification_section_terms_v1_1'. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when to choose another.

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