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 discloses that the configuration values 'persist for the current session,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if invalid keys/values are provided, or if there are any side effects. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and key behavioral detail.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and session persistence. However, for a configuration-setting tool, it could benefit from mentioning potential errors (e.g., invalid keys), permission requirements, or default behaviors. The absence of output schema isn't critical here, but more context would improve completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (key and value). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example keys ('company_id' or 'project_id'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Given the high schema coverage, a 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: 'Set runtime configuration values (company_id, project_id).' It specifies the verb ('Set') and the resource ('runtime configuration values'), and identifies the specific config keys. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, as there are no obvious configuration-setting siblings in the provided list.

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 context for when to use the tool: 'These persist for the current session.' This indicates the persistence scope, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, though the sibling list doesn't show obvious alternatives for configuration setting.

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