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 states 'List Witness Statements' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema suggests paginated results, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or describe return format, leaving significant gaps.

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 restatement of the name and a context/endpoint note. However, it is not front-loaded with critical information (e.g., purpose or usage), and the endpoint detail may be redundant if the agent already has structured API data. It avoids verbosity but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error handling. While the schema covers inputs well, the description fails to address key aspects like pagination handling, filtering logic, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id, date range formats for filters). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is provided, but no compensation is needed.

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 Witness Statements. [Project Management/Incidents] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/witness_statements' restates the tool name ('List Witness Statements') and adds minimal context about the domain and HTTP method. It lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered, paginated) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_witness_statements' (if any) or other list tools in the server, making it vague beyond the obvious.

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 the domain '[Project Management/Incidents]' but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_witness_statement' or 'show_witness_statement' from the sibling list. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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