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 Submittals' and includes an HTTP method (GET), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on errors. The description lacks critical operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 very concise—just one sentence with an API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose, though minimal. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for under-specification.

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 (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error handling. For a list operation with extensive filtering options, the description should provide more context about what is returned and how to use the filters effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 21 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', various filters, pagination). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Submittals. [Project Management/Submittals] GET /rest/v1.0/submittal_logs' restates the tool name ('List Submittals') without adding specificity. It mentions the API endpoint but does not clarify what 'submittals' are or what the tool actually retrieves (e.g., a list of submittal records with filtering options). This is a tautology with minimal additional context.

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 any sibling tools (e.g., other list or search tools for submittals) or specify use cases like filtering, pagination, or prerequisites. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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