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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The POST method hint is minimal 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 fragment followed by the endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it could be argued it's under-specified rather than optimally concise, but within its minimal form, every element serves a purpose.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a compliance document is in this context, what happens after creation, error conditions, or any system behavior. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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 already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description could have explained relationships between parameters.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'compliance document', specifying it's for a project context. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific endpoint path, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools in the list. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from similar 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any exclusions. With many sibling tools (including other compliance document tools), this lack of guidance leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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