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 only states 'Create a Budget View Snapshot' and includes an HTTP POST method, implying a write operation. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects (e.g., if it affects other budget data). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a fragmented sentence with ellipses and includes extraneous details like the HTTP method and endpoint, which are not necessary for an AI agent's understanding. While it's brief, it lacks a clear, structured explanation of the tool's purpose, making it less helpful than a more informative yet equally concise description would be.

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, 3 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a budget view snapshot is, why one would create it, what the output looks like, or any error conditions. For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like budget_template_id vs. budget_view_id). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have added value by clarifying parameter interdependencies.

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 'Create a Budget View Snapshot.. [Construction Financials/Budget] POST /rest/v1.0/budget_view_snapshots' is vague and tautological. It essentially restates the tool name ('Create a Budget View Snapshot') with minor additions (category and HTTP method). It does not specify what a 'budget view snapshot' actually is or what it does beyond creation, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools (e.g., other 'create' tools).

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other budget or snapshot tools). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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