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 states 'Create a new Crew' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. The mention of 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/crews' hints at an HTTP method but adds little practical context for an AI agent.

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 with two parts: a clear action statement and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the endpoint detail, while not essential for an AI agent, does not add excessive verbosity. However, the endpoint string could be considered slightly extraneous in this context.

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 of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like required permissions, the structure of the response, error conditions, or how the crew integrates with the project. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 parameters (project_id, lead_party_id, name, party_ids, equipment_ids) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints, relationships, or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a new Crew') and the resource ('Crew'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_a_new_group' or 'create_a_new_equipment' by focusing on crews, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_time_and_material_entry') beyond the resource name.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_a_new_group' or 'create_a_new_equipment'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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