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 'List Work Activities' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints.

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—two short phrases—and front-loaded with the core action ('List Work Activities'). It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint in brackets, while informative, slightly disrupts flow and could be integrated more smoothly, preventing a perfect score.

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's complexity (7 parameters, filtering, pagination) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints like pagination limits. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters interact or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Work Activities', which is specific and actionable. It also includes the API endpoint path, which provides additional context about the resource scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like 'list_work_activities' vs. 'create_work_activity' or other list tools), which prevents a perfect score.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when work activities are relevant), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'create_work_activity' or other filtering tools). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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