Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Bulk Create' and includes a POST method, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The mention of 'completion_mode' in the schema hints at transactional behavior, but the description doesn't explain this, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, consisting of a single sentence that includes the tool's purpose and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action ('Bulk Create Plan Template References'), but could be more structured by separating conceptual guidance from technical details. There's no wasted verbiage, though it lacks depth, making it efficient but under-specified.

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 doesn't explain what 'Plan Template References' are, the expected input format for the array, success/failure responses, or how errors are handled. The schema covers parameters but not behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 'company_id' and 'completion_mode', but 'plan_template_references' has a generic description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'plan_template_references' should contain or the implications of 'all_or_nothing' vs 'atomic'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's room for improvement in clarifying the array contents.

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 Plan Template References. [Project Management/Action Plans] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/action_plans/plan_template_references/bulk_create' restates the tool name and includes an HTTP method and path, but it's vague about what 'Plan Template References' are and what 'bulk create' entails. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_references' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_references', making it a tautology with minimal added 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing plan templates or company context, or compare it to non-bulk creation methods. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_references'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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