Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation via 'GET'. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page params), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only/safe. The HTTP method hint is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with zero waste: 'List Submittal Responses. [Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittal_responses'. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the HTTP endpoint detail could be considered extraneous for an AI agent.

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?

For a list tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the missing structured context.

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 parameter semantics beyond implying project-scoping via the endpoint path '/projects/{project_id}/submittal_responses'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 Submittal Responses' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Submittal Responses'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_submittal_responses_v1_0' or 'list_submittals'. The category tag '[Project Management/Submittals]' adds some context, but the purpose remains generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_submittals' or 'list_submittal_responses_v1_0'. Usage is implied only by the category tag.

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