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 states 'POST /rest/v1.0/financials/markups' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a permanent record, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence plus the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness; while technically concise, it may be under-specified for such a complex tool with 13 parameters. The single sentence earns its place but leaves out important context.

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 (13 parameters, 6 required, nested objects) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Markup' is in this financial/contracts context, doesn't describe the creation behavior, doesn't mention permissions or side effects, and provides no guidance on usage. For a tool that creates financial markup records with significant complexity, this description leaves too many unanswered questions.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify complex parameters like 'compound' or 'markup_conditions'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional 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 states the action ('Add a new Markup') and provides the API endpoint, but it's vague about what a 'Markup' is in this context. It mentions 'Construction Financials/Contracts' which gives some domain context, but doesn't clearly distinguish this from other 'add' tools in the sibling list like 'add_change_order_package_to_a_requisition_subcontractor_invoice' or 'add_wage_override'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the resource being created.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many other 'add' tools in the sibling list (over 100 tools starting with 'add_'), but no indication of when this specific markup creation tool is appropriate versus other creation tools. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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