Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a Job Title' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. This leaves significant 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but includes unnecessary technical details like the API endpoint path ('POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/job-titles') that don't help an AI agent. The bracketed category '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' adds minimal value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new job title object), error conditions, or system constraints. With no annotations and complex parameters, more context is needed for proper usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of the 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a Job Title'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_a_job_title' or 'delete_a_job_title', which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.

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 like update or delete operations. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing a company_id or when job titles are typically created in workflow planning.

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