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 'Create a budget change' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The HTTP method 'POST' implies creation, but no further details are given, leaving critical gaps 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: the action and the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary words, but the endpoint detail ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget_changes') might be overly technical without adding user-facing value. However, it's front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose beyond the basic action, lacks usage context, and omits behavioral details. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this leaves the agent poorly informed about how to invoke it 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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 ('Create a budget change') and resource ('budget change'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_budget_modification' or 'create_budget_line_item', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Budget]' adds some context but is not fully explanatory.

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, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for draft creation or requires specific permissions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_budget_modification'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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