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 only states the action and API endpoint without mentioning permissions required, side effects (e.g., billing implications from 'status' parameter), rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with 31 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 stating the action and API endpoint—with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical context (e.g., it's a POST operation), and the inclusion of the endpoint path adds some clutter without clear value for an AI agent.

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 (31 parameters, 7 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to address behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or response structure. For a tool that creates a person with many configurable attributes, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining dependencies between fields (e.g., 'email' required if 'is_user' is true, which is already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 Person') and resource ('Person'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_person' or 'create_project_person', which might be relevant in this context, preventing 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, such as other person-creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_company_person', 'create_project_person'). It lacks context about prerequisites, target scope (company vs. project), or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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