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 Tax Codes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), read-only nature, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 ('List Tax Codes. [Construction Financials/Tax] GET /rest/v1.0/tax_codes'), with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint and category in brackets, while informative, slightly clutters the core purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of tax code objects), pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a list tool with pagination parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 already documents all parameters (company_id, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 Tax Codes' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Tax Codes'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools (e.g., 'list_tax_types' or 'list_cost_codes') among the many sibling tools, making it vague about its specific scope beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like requiring company_id), filtering capabilities, or comparisons with other tax-related tools (e.g., 'list_tax_types' or 'sync_tax_codes'), leaving the agent without usage context.

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