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 Response' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The endpoint path suggests it's company-specific and checklist-related, but lacks details on side effects or error handling.

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 brief purpose statement and a REST endpoint. However, it is not optimally structured—the endpoint detail is useful but could be integrated better. It avoids waste but could be more front-loaded with clearer context. Efficiency is moderate, as it conveys basic info without elaboration.

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 (a creation tool with 3 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what a 'Response' entails, the expected output, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., checklist inspections). The endpoint hint adds some context but does not compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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%, with clear descriptions for parameters: company_id (unique identifier), name (name of the Response), and corresponding_status (item status enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting without needing extra explanation from 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 Response. [Project Management/Inspections] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses' states the action ('Create') and resource ('Response'), but is vague about what a 'Response' is in this context (e.g., a checklist item response, inspection response). It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'create_a_response_in_the_specified_item_response_set' by implying a top-level creation, but lacks specificity on the resource's nature.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and a REST endpoint, which hints at context, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_checklist_item_response' or 'create_a_response_in_the_specified_item_response_set'. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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