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' which implies read-only, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions needed, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 brief but includes unnecessary API path details ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_sets') that don't help an AI agent. The bracketed '[Project Management/Specifications]' adds minor context but isn't well-integrated. It's front-loaded but could be more focused.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Specification Set' is, what the output contains, pagination details, or error conditions. For a list operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (project_id, page, per_page). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or typical usage patterns.

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 states 'List Specification Sets' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'Specification Sets' are. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (many other 'list_' tools exist) and includes extraneous API path information that doesn't clarify 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be relevant (like other listing tools). The API path hint about project context is minimal and not explanatory.

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