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 mentions using discover/search tools first, which hints at a prerequisite, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or that it can perform destructive operations (e.g., DELETE). For a generic API call tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a generic tool.

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 (generic API execution with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, error responses, rate limits, and the nature of operations (read vs. write). For a powerful, flexible tool like this, the description should provide more context to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the need for correct method, path, and parameters. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute any Procore API call.' It specifies the verb ('Execute') and resource ('Procore API call'), and distinguishes it from siblings by advising to use discover/search tools first, then call it here. This is specific and differentiates it from the many specialized sibling tools.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Use discover/search tools to find the right endpoint first, then call it here with the correct method, path, and parameters.' It tells when to use this tool (after discovery) and implies when not to (don't use it blindly). This is clear and actionable guidance.

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