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. The description fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or what the output format is. It mentions an HTTP GET method, but lacks critical operational context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the tool name, domain context, and HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the purpose itself is vague. The structure is clear but under-specified rather than concise.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output, error conditions, or usage context. For a list/retrieve tool with many filtering options, the description should provide more guidance on expected results and operational limits.

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 fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how filters interact or the meaning of 'view' options). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no additional value.

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 'Show All Prime Change Orders' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a domain context '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' and an HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/prime_change_orders', but lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'show' entails (e.g., list, retrieve, filter). It does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the endpoint path.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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