Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a task item comment' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but no further behavioral context is given. 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 brief but under-specified rather than concise. The first sentence 'Create a task item comment' is tautological, and the API endpoint adds technical detail without user-facing value. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently. A truly concise description would front-load purpose and key constraints.

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 a mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the tool's complexity, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system. The API endpoint provides some technical context, but for an agent needing to invoke this correctly, critical behavioral and contextual information is missing.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'attachments' and 'upload_ids'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have highlighted key parameters like 'comment' content or 'status' restrictions.

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 task item comment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the API endpoint '[Core/Tasks] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/task_item_comments', which provides some context but doesn't clearly distinguish what this tool does beyond the obvious. It lacks details about what a 'task item comment' entails or how it differs from other comment tools.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_checklist_comment', 'create_punch_item_comment', 'creates_an_inspection_item_comment'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately among similar comment-creation tools.

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