Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Add Role to Project') and includes a URL path, but fails to describe whether this is a mutation (likely), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what the response contains. This leaves critical behavioral aspects 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 concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action but wastes space on a URL path that doesn't aid the agent, lacking essential context that would justify 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome, error conditions, or system behavior, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly in context.

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 parameters (company_id, project_id, person_id, job_title_id) with details like formats and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Role to Project' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'assigns a person to a role within a project') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_company_user_to_project' or 'add_person_to_a_group', leaving the exact purpose vague.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'add_company_user_to_project'), the agent has no indication of how to choose between them.

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