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 'List Specification Uploads' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'uploads' entail (e.g., file metadata). This is a significant gap 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 with two parts: a clear purpose statement and an HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though the inclusion of the endpoint might be redundant if the agent doesn't need it. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'specification uploads' are, how results are returned (e.g., paginated list), or behavioral aspects. With no output schema, the agent lacks information on return values, making this inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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 documents all parameters (project_id, page, per_page, filters__status, filters__specification_set_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting. No additional context is provided for how filters work or parameter interactions.

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 Uploads' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Specification Uploads'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (like 'list_specification_sets' or 'list_specification_areas') or specify what 'uploads' are in this context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_specification_sets'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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