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 implies a read-only list operation via 'GET', but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method, leaving key behaviors unspecified.

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 brief purpose statement and technical details (domain context and HTTP endpoint). It is front-loaded with the core action ('List Sub Jobs') and avoids redundancy. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from technical notes.

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, no output schema, and a tool with 3 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., list format, fields), error conditions, or pagination behavior implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. The domain context helps but does not compensate for missing operational details.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying listing is scoped to 'Sub Jobs' in a domain context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 Sub Jobs. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] GET /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs' restates the tool name ('List Sub Jobs') with minimal elaboration. It adds domain context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and the HTTP method/endpoint, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes what 'sub jobs' are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_submittals' or 'list_tasks'. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., when sub jobs are relevant), or compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_wbs_codes' or 'list_submittals'). Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selection.

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