Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List Units of Measure' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the implied safe read.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (a read-only list with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and endpoint but lacks details on return format, error cases, or usage context. It meets the bare minimum for a basic listing tool but leaves gaps in full agent guidance.

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 clear descriptions for company_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters, but the description does not compensate with extra context.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Units of Measure'), and includes the API endpoint path which reinforces the context. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and description are specific enough to infer its role as a read-only listing operation.

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 mentions '[Construction Financials/Units of Measure]' which gives some domain context, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool relationships. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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