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 only states 'List Webhooks Hooks' and includes a platform tag and API endpoint, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure includes the tool name, a platform tag, and an API endpoint, but these elements don't add meaningful guidance. It's brief but lacks substance.

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 of a listing tool with 6 parameters (including pagination and scoping), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, or behavior adequately. The agent would struggle to understand how to invoke this tool correctly without relying heavily on the input schema alone, which is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' and 'project_id' are mutually exclusive, 'per_page' has a max of 100). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema coverage is high, the 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 Webhooks Hooks' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('Webhooks Hooks') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List', and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_company_webhooks_hooks_v2_0' or 'list_project_webhooks_hooks_v2_0'. The platform context '[Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks]' is generic and doesn't explain what the tool actually does.

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 sibling tools for listing company and project webhooks, but no indication of whether this tool is a generic version, requires specific parameters, or serves a different scope. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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