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 mentions 'List Webhooks Deliveries' and an API endpoint, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by page parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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: a functional statement and a technical API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API endpoint detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent if the schema already covers parameters. It's efficient but not perfectly tailored.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error conditions. The API endpoint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more guidance is needed.

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 8 parameters (e.g., hook_id, company_id, filters__status). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It implies a hook_id is needed via the API endpoint, but this is already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 Webhooks Deliveries' clearly states the action (list) and resource (webhooks deliveries), but it's very basic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It lacks specificity about what 'deliveries' means (e.g., webhook event logs). The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks] GET /rest/v1.0/webhooks/hooks/{hook_id}/deliveries' adds technical context but doesn't improve the functional clarity for an AI agent.

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. There are many sibling tools (e.g., list_company_webhooks_deliveries_v2_0, list_project_webhooks_deliveries_v2_0) that likely serve similar purposes, but no differentiation is offered. The API endpoint hints at a hook_id parameter, but no explicit usage context is given.

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