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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a Bid Form' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of a single sentence followed by the API endpoint, with no wasted words. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details, while informative, could be considered slightly verbose for a pure description, but it does not detract significantly from clarity.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on permissions, error handling, response structure, and how it integrates with sibling tools. The endpoint hint provides some context, but overall, it does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the structure of 'base_bid' or 'alternates' arrays). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value.

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 ('Create a Bid Form') and the resource ('Bid Form'), which matches the tool name. It provides the API endpoint context ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/bid_packages/{bid_package_id}/bid_forms'), which helps clarify the hierarchical relationship. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_bid_form_v1_1' or other bid-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' as a category, but this is generic and does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'create_a_bid_form_v1_1'. There is no explicit when/when-not usage advice.

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