Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'List' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the name, leaving key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Submittal Statuses'). The additional technical details are included in a single line, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the HTTP endpoint and role hint could be seen as slightly cluttering, though it remains efficient overall.

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 lacks completeness for a list operation. It does not explain what 'Submittal Statuses' are, the format of the returned list, or any error conditions. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for understanding the tool's behavior and output is insufficient, especially for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining pagination defaults or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 Statuses' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Submittal Statuses'), which is a specific action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_submittals' or 'list_submittal_types', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being listed. The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/submittal_statuses' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the purpose further.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at administrative context, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_submittals'. Without clear usage instructions, the agent lacks context for appropriate tool selection.

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