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 implies a write operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (hinted by '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]'), whether the operation is idempotent, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The HTTP method (POST) is noted, but no further behavioral details are given.

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 consists of a restated name, a permission/context hint in brackets, and an API endpoint. While front-loaded with the core action, it lacks explanatory sentences that would add value, making it sparse rather than efficiently 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 the complexity of a bulk creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Lov Entries' are, the expected structure of the array items, potential side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples for 'custom_field_lov_entries' array items. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter descriptions.

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 Custom Field Lov Entries' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the action ('Bulk Create') and resource ('Custom Field Lov Entries'), but lacks detail on what 'Lov Entries' are (likely 'List of Values') and how this differs from singular creation tools. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_values_to_custom_field' or 'create_custom_field', making it vague in context.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing custom field definition), compare it to non-bulk creation methods, or specify scenarios where bulk creation is appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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