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 'Create Action' and an HTTP POST, implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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—two brief phrases—and front-loaded with the tool's name. There is no wasted verbiage. However, it is overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the efficiency.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what an 'Action' is, its purpose in incident management, or the expected outcome. The agent must rely solely on the input schema, missing crucial context for proper tool invocation in a real-world scenario.

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 11 parameters (e.g., project_id, incident_id, action_type_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which fits here.

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 Action. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions' restates the tool name ('Create Action') and adds minimal context about the domain and HTTP method. It lacks specificity about what an 'Action' is in this context (e.g., a corrective action for an incident) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_incident' or 'create_action_plan'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb 'Create'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing incident), exclusions, or related tools. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_incident', 'create_action_plan'), the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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