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. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) and includes the HTTP method (POST), which hints at creation. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, typical response format, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 (one sentence plus API path) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the functional description from the technical endpoint, but this is minor.

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 (creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a WBS segment is, its role in the system, typical outcomes, or error handling. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'structure' enum values and segment behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or business logic.

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') and resource ('Company WBS Segment'), with additional context about the domain ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for company-level segments rather than project-level (e.g., 'create_project_wbs_segment' exists in siblings). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'create_company_segment_item' or 'create_wbs_code'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing company), compare with similar tools like 'create_project_wbs_segment' or 'create_company_segment_item', or indicate typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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