Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/groups', implying a write operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that repeats the tool name and adds an API endpoint, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on redundant information ('Create a Single Group') without adding meaningful context, failing to front-load useful guidance.

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer how to correctly invoke this 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 fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 states the action ('Create a Single Group') and resource ('Group'), but it's vague about what a 'Group' represents in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_a_new_group' or 'create_group_and_move_markups', leaving ambiguity about the specific resource being created.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_a_new_group' or 'create_group_and_move_markups', 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.