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 the HTTP method 'GET' and endpoint '/rest/v1.0/webhooks/resources', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the platform tag and HTTP endpoint, while potentially useful for developers, doesn't directly help an AI agent select and invoke the tool. The sentence is efficient but could be more focused on agent needs.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Webhooks Resources' are, what the output looks like, or how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters). For a list tool with three parameters and no structured output guidance, the description should provide more context about the resource being listed.

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 documentation for project_id, page, and per_page parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Resources' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'Webhooks Resources' are or what 'list' entails beyond the obvious. The platform tag '[Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks]' provides some context, but the core purpose remains vague compared to what the name already states.

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. Given the many sibling tools (including other list_webhooks_* tools like list_webhooks_hooks and list_webhooks_triggers), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap. The agent receives no help in selecting this specific list operation over others.

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