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 only indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that states the tool name and API endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but the content is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed.

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 of a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'Change Event' is, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a read operation with multiple parameters, more completeness is needed to guide the agent 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%, with all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Show Change Event. [Construction Financials/Change Events] GET /rest/v1.0/change_events/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Change Event') and adds minimal context about the domain and API endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes its function from sibling tools, making it vague and tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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