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. The description mentions nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how results are paginated (despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, or error conditions. It's completely silent on behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence plus an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List task items') and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'task items' are, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. For a list operation with filtering, sorting, and pagination parameters, the description should provide more guidance on usage and expected outcomes.

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 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'filters__*' parameters are optional filters) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 items. [Core/Tasks] GET /rest/v1.0/task_items' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'list_task_items' with minimal elaboration. It adds the API endpoint path, but this doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the obvious 'list' action. It doesn't specify what 'task items' are or distinguish this from other list tools in the sibling set.

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. With many sibling tools (over 1,000), including other list operations like 'list_tasks', 'list_task_item_categories', and 'list_task_item_comments', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The agent receives no usage context.

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