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. However, it only includes a tautological statement and an API endpoint, offering no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output looks like. It fails to describe any behavioral traits.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes redundant information (the tool name) and an API endpoint that is not helpful for an AI agent. The structure is poor, with no front-loaded useful information. The single sentence does not earn its place by adding value.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, its behavioral context, or usage scenarios. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context but does not.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 Project Checklist Template' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish its purpose from sibling tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds minimal domain context but does not specify what the tool actually does.

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 prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the tool name.

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