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 mentions cloning via a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not specify if this creates a new independent event, copies all attributes, requires permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action, but the endpoint detail, while technical, is not wasteful. However, it could be more structured by separating conceptual from implementation details.

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 two parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what cloning produces (e.g., a new change event with copied data), potential constraints, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 'id' and 'project_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'id' refers to the source change event to clone. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Change Event') and the resource domain ('Construction Financials/Change Events'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_change_event' or 'update_change_event'), and the inclusion of the API endpoint ('POST /rest/v1.1/change_events/{id}/clone') adds technical detail but not semantic clarity about what cloning entails.

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 like creating a new change event or updating an existing one. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing change event to clone) or typical use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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