Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Bulk Create' and the endpoint, failing to describe whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not confirmed), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, how errors are handled (e.g., with 'completion_mode'), or the response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a bulk creation tool.

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 but under-specified—it wastes space on the endpoint (which is not needed in the description) and lacks meaningful content. While it is front-loaded with the tool name, the single sentence does not earn its place by adding value beyond what's inferable from the name. It is brief but not effectively structured for clarity.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose, usage, behavior, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description does not fill the gaps for a mutation operation.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'completion_mode', though 'plan_references' has a minimal description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain what 'plan_references' should contain, their structure, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not compensate for the vague 'plan_references' item description.

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 References. [Project Management/Action Plans] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_references/bulk_create' restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP method and endpoint. It lacks a specific verb+resource explanation (e.g., what 'Action Plan References' are, what 'bulk create' entails) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_references' or 'create_action_plan_reference', making it vague and minimally informative.

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 (e.g., existing action plans), context for bulk operations, or comparisons to non-bulk or template reference tools. With many sibling tools involving action plan references, the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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