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. It states 'Create a new group' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. The POST endpoint hint suggests it's an API call, but no further details are given.

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 very concise with just one sentence plus endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new group'), and the additional context is minimal but relevant. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'group' is in this context, what the creation entails, or what the tool returns. The endpoint path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information needed for a mutation tool.

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 8 parameters (e.g., company_id, name, layer_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '[Project Management/Document Markup]' which loosely relates to the context but doesn't clarify individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 new group' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('group'), but it's vague about what type of group and lacks sibling differentiation. It mentions '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a POST endpoint, which adds some context but doesn't specify what distinguishes this from other group-related tools like 'create_a_single_group' or 'add_person_to_a_group' in the sibling list.

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 includes a POST endpoint path that implies it's for creating groups within a company/project context, but there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_a_single_group' (which appears to be a sibling).

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