Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'create'), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, how errors are handled, or what the completion_mode parameter implies for transactional behavior. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the implied 'create' action.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes characters on the API endpoint path ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_item_assignees/bulk_create') which doesn't help an AI agent, instead of using that space for meaningful guidance. The single sentence lacks front-loaded value.

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 bulk creation tool with 3 parameters (including an array of unspecified items) and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what 'bulk create' means operationally, what the array items should contain, error handling, or expected response format. For a mutation tool with undocumented array contents, this is inadequate.

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 documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the structure of 'plan_item_assignees' array items or provide examples. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Bulk Create Action Plan Item Assignees' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'bulk create' entails, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling bulk operations like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_item_assignees_company' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_item_assignees_project'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., single-assignee creation tools or other bulk assignee tools). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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