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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API endpoint and implies a read operation through 'List' and 'GET', but doesn't specify whether this is paginated (though parameters suggest it is), what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by the name.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides the API endpoint which could be useful for technical context. There's no wasted verbiage, though the platform context '[Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks]' adds minimal value.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what triggers are, what data they contain, or how the listing is structured. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the returned data and usage patterns.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics - it doesn't explain the relationship between hook_id and the triggers being listed, or why both company_id and project_id are required but mutually exclusive. Since schema coverage is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate despite no added value from the description.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List Webhooks Triggers' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_company_webhooks_triggers_v2_0' or 'list_project_webhooks_triggers_v2_0' that appear in the sibling list, leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of the API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/webhooks/hooks/{hook_id}/triggers' adds technical specificity but doesn't fully clarify functional distinction.

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 multiple sibling tools for listing webhooks triggers (company and project variants), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is a generic version, company-specific, or project-specific. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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