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 the search scope ('all 2,636 Procore API endpoints') and purpose ('quickly find relevant endpoints'), but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. It adds some context but lacks details on operational behavior.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and usage. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints, which would be helpful for a search tool, but the absence of an output schema is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Full-text search across all 2,636 Procore API endpoint summaries, tags, and paths.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Procore API endpoints'), and scope ('all 2,636'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all specific CRUD operations, making the distinction implicit rather than explicit.

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 clear usage context: 'Use to quickly find relevant endpoints.' This implies when to use it—when searching for endpoints—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all specific endpoint operations, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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