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 only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, includes an HTTP method (redundant for an MCP tool), and adds domain context in brackets. While not verbose, it wastes space on non-essential details instead of providing actionable guidance.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage context. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more guidance is needed to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'view' enum implications or filter usage. 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 Standard Cost Codes. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] GET /rest/v1.0/standard_cost_codes' restates the tool name ('List Standard Cost Codes') and adds only domain context and an HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb beyond 'List' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_standard_cost_code_lists' or 'list_cost_codes', making it vague about what exactly is being listed.

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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'list_standard_cost_code_lists' or 'list_cost_codes'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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