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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether creation is reversible, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. The POST method hint in the description suggests it's an HTTP POST, but this isn't explicit behavioral guidance for the 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 extremely concise with just one sentence plus an HTTP method hint, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted text, the single sentence doesn't provide enough context for effective tool use. The structure isn't front-loaded with critical information beyond the basic action.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'layer' is in this system, what happens after creation, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context about the domain and expected outcomes.

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 with basic descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'context_id' means, how 'order_index' affects layer ordering, what 'visibility' controls, or what 'settings' might contain. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 layer' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Project Management/Document Markup]' which provides some context, but doesn't clearly distinguish what a 'layer' is or what resource it creates. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_a_new_context' or 'create_a_new_group', it doesn't differentiate its purpose beyond the basic verb+resource.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what alternatives might exist (like 'convert_private_layer_to_public' from the sibling list). The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.

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