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 only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 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 (one sentence plus endpoint), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on the endpoint path, which is not helpful for an AI agent. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filters work. For a list tool with filtering and sorting capabilities, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (project_id, filters__id, sort, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Sections. [Project Management/Specifications] GET /rest/v1.0/specification_sections' restates the tool name ('List Specification Sections') and adds only a category and endpoint path. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination that clarifies what the tool does beyond the name, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., other list tools like list_specification_areas_for_a_project_v2_1), this absence is a significant gap.

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