Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether this is reversible/destructive, what happens when a budget is locked, or what the response contains. The API path suggests it's a POST operation, but that's technical rather than behavioral 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 extremely concise - just one sentence plus the API path. While it could be more informative, there's no wasted text. The structure is straightforward though minimal.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what budget locking means, what the consequences are, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The API path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing functional explanation.

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 one parameter (project_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain why project_id is needed or how it relates to budget locking. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a budget lock' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite basic. It doesn't explain what a budget lock is or what it does functionally. The API path '[Construction Financials/Budget] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget/lock' provides technical context but doesn't enhance the functional understanding.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternatives. Given the sibling tools list includes many budget-related tools, this 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.