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. It implies a mutation ('Add') and includes a POST endpoint, suggesting a write operation, but fails to specify required permissions, whether the action is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate membership), or side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, adds a bracketed category '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' that doesn't clarify usage, and includes a POST endpoint without explaining its significance. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant or unclear elements rather than focusing on actionable information.

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 mutation nature (implied by 'Add' and POST), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context like success/error responses, idempotency, and permission requirements. For a tool that modifies group membership, this gap hinders an agent's ability to use it correctly and handle edge cases.

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 documentation for company_id, person_id, and group_id. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between IDs. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately defines parameters.

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 'Add Person to a Group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks details about what 'add' entails (e.g., membership assignment) or the resource context (e.g., workforce planning). While it includes a POST endpoint hinting at creation, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_a_person_from_a_group' beyond the opposite action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing person/group), constraints, or related tools like 'create_a_person' or 'create_a_new_group'. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about applicability.

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