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 cloning but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it creates a new project), what permissions are required, if it duplicates all settings, or how errors are handled. The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's action, followed by the API endpoint in brackets. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of the endpoint path, while concise, adds technical noise without functional value for an AI agent.

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 cloning operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what is cloned (e.g., settings, data), the expected output, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with significant implications, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 input schema fully documents parameters like 'bid_board_project_id', 'company_id', 'name', and 'as_template'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'as_template' or how 'name' is used. 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 ('Clone') and resource ('Bid Board project'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bid_board_project_v2_0' or 'update_bid_board_project_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about when cloning is preferred over creation or update. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but does not enhance functional clarity.

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, such as needing an existing project to clone, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_bid_board_project_v2_0'. Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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