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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List Task Item Comments' and includes an API endpoint, but does not describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 clear action statement and an API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the endpoint provides technical context without unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding a brief note on filtering) without sacrificing brevity.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of comment objects), pagination details, or how filters interact. For a list operation with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', filters). The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 Task Item Comments' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Task Item Comments'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all comments or filtered) and does not distinguish itself from potential sibling tools, such as 'list_task_items' or 'create_a_task_item_comment', beyond the obvious difference in action.

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 (e.g., needing a specific project or company context), filtering capabilities, or how it relates to other comment-related tools like 'create_a_task_item_comment'. Usage is implied only by the name and parameters, with no explicit instructions.

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