Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' and pagination parameters (page, per_page) from the input schema, implying a read-only, paginated list operation, but fails to disclose critical behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (e.g., assignment details). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase followed by bracketed context and a URL. While not verbose, it lacks substantive content that would aid an AI agent, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that merely restates the name with minimal context, this is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters. It fails to explain what 'resource assignment' means, what the output looks like, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination via the presence of 'page' and 'per_page' in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 resource assignment' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional clarity. It does not specify what 'resource assignment' entails (e.g., viewing details, list of assignments) or differentiate it from sibling tools, leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and resource ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering no usage direction.

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