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 only states 'List tasks' and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety, discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description lacks essential behavioral details for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The bracketed text adds clutter without clear value. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information, making it less effective.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or any behavioral traits. For a list operation with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in 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 tasks' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not specify what kind of tasks (e.g., project tasks) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools, which include many other list operations. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' is ambiguous and does not clarify the purpose.

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, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant for task-related operations. The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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