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 mentions 'Bulk Create' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, error handling for bulk operations, or what happens on partial failures (though the 'completion_mode' parameter in schema hints at this). The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 tool's purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though the second sentence is technical and could be more user-friendly. No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with bulk operations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, response format, and how bulk creation works (e.g., atomicity). The context signals indicate complexity (3 parameters, bulk operation), but the description does not adequately address these aspects.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the purpose of 'plan_template_references' array or 'completion_mode' choices). Baseline 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 states the action ('Bulk Create') and resource ('Action Plan Template References'), but it is vague about what 'Action Plan Template References' are and does not distinguish from siblings like 'bulk_create_action_plan_references' or 'bulk_create_plan_template_references'. It lacks specificity in the resource being created.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project management), or compare with sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_reference' for single operations. Usage is implied only by the name and category.

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