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. It states 'Add Values to Custom Field' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this appends or replaces values, required permissions, potential side effects, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and context, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details might be redundant if the agent already has structured API data, but it's not overly verbose.

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 of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the mutation behavior (e.g., appending values), expected response format, error conditions, or administrative constraints. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full 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%, with detailed descriptions for company_id, field_id, and values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already explains parameter formats and purposes. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose as 'Add Values to Custom Field', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_values_from_custom_field' or explain what 'values' entail (e.g., appending vs. replacing). It's adequate but lacks specificity for sibling distinction.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]', which hints at administrative context, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with related tools like 'create_custom_field' or 'update_custom_field'. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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