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 Project' which implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The endpoint path hints at a POST operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied action.

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 two words plus bracketed context and an endpoint path. While under-specified for a complex tool, it wastes no words. The front-loaded 'Create a Project' immediately states the action, though the additional bracketed text and endpoint are more technical than helpful for an 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?

For a complex mutation tool with 26 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'Project' represents in this system, what happens after creation, or any behavioral constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema, which documents inputs but not the tool's operational behavior or results.

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 26 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the structured data.

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 Project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no specific verb+resource context beyond the obvious, and fails to distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_project', 'create_a_single_project', 'create_a_bid_form', etc.). While the bracketed '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and the endpoint path provide some domain context, the core description lacks meaningful differentiation.

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. With numerous sibling tools (including other project-creation tools like 'create_project' and 'create_a_single_project'), the agent receives no explicit or implied context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The absence of any usage instructions leaves the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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