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 'Add to project' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe that this is a mutation (POST operation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what the response entails. 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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. However, the purpose statement is under-specified, and the endpoint detail may not be directly useful for an AI agent. It avoids verbosity but lacks effective front-loading of essential 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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Add to project' means in terms of adding a vendor, the effect of the operation, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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', 'ID of the vendor', view enum details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation, meeting the baseline for high 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 to project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what is being added or to what resource. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_company_user_to_project' or 'add_role_to_project', making the 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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'add_company_user_to_project', 'add_role_to_project'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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