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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which implies permission requirements, but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or if there are pagination or rate limit considerations. The description lacks essential behavioral details for a list operation with multiple 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 parts: 'List trades.' and '[Company Admin/Company Settings] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/trades'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though minimal. The second part adds some context but could be more integrated. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how the filters work together. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, 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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how filters interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 trades' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'trades' are (e.g., construction trades, trade entities) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_project_trades' or 'show_trade', which are present in the sibling list. The description fails to provide a clear verb-resource combination 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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_trades' or 'show_trade'. The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permissions but is vague and not actionable for an AI agent.

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