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 includes 'GET' and the endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). It lacks critical behavioral context 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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a tautological statement followed by a category and endpoint, which adds some value but lacks essential details. While not verbose, it fails to efficiently convey necessary information, making it mediocre in structure.

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 (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Time And Material Notification' entails, the format of the returned data, or how pagination works. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents the parameters. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline 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 Time And Material Notification' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_notifications', which hints at a read operation to retrieve notifications for a project, but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve time and material notifications for a specific project').

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, context, or sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other notification-related tools in the sibling list like 'show_time_and_material_entry' or 'create_a_new_time_and_material_notification'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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