Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Bulk Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate entries, whether it's idempotent, or what the response format looks like. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but no other behavioral context is provided.

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 extremely concise - just the tool name restated with category and endpoint. While efficient, it may be too minimal given the lack of other guidance. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful for a bulk creation tool.

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?

For a bulk creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'receivers' are in this context, what the operation actually does, what happens on success/failure, or any behavioral expectations. The combination of mutation operation with minimal documentation creates significant gaps.

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 three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Bulk Create') and the resource ('Action Plan Template Receivers'), with the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' providing additional context. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'bulk_create' vs. single-create operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bulk_create tools like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_approvers'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose bulk creation over individual creation. It simply restates the tool name with minimal context.

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