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 mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe/non-destructive, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately concise with three short elements: the core statement, category tag, and endpoint. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. However, the core statement 'Show Project Schedule Settings' is overly simplistic and doesn't provide enough functional clarity.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'schedule settings' actually means, what data is returned, or how the pagination works in practice. For a tool that presumably returns configuration data, more context about the nature of the settings would be helpful for the agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 three parameters (project_id, page, per_page) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Schedule Settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/settings', which provides some technical context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool actually does beyond showing settings. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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. There are no explicit instructions about context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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