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 states 'Bulk Create' and includes a PATCH endpoint hint, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it overwrites existing codes, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 no wasted words, front-loading the key action ('Bulk Create WBS codes'). The inclusion of domain context and endpoint is efficient. However, it could be more structured by separating functional description from technical details, but it remains clear and to the point.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'bulk' entails (e.g., array structure, validation rules), success/failure responses, or side effects. For a mutation tool with significant impact, more context is needed to guide the agent 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 'project_id' and 'bulk' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it implies the tool operates on a specific project and handles bulk data, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Bulk Create') and resource ('WBS codes'), with additional context in brackets indicating the domain ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_a_wbs_code' (singular) and 'bulk_update_wbs_codes' (update vs. create). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the scope (e.g., multiple codes at once), which could be more specific.

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 (e.g., existing project, WBS structure), compare with 'create_a_wbs_code' for single creation, or specify scenarios requiring bulk operations. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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