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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create Action Plan' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context about what that means behaviorally.

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 the tool name followed by category and endpoint information. While efficient, it's arguably too terse given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations). Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful for this non-trivial creation tool.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an action plan is in this system, what happens after creation, whether there are prerequisites, or what the typical workflow looks like. The agent must infer everything from parameter names alone.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation via the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 tool creates an action plan, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_an_action_plan_from_a_plan_template' or 'bulk_create_action_plans_for_locations_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific creation method versus alternatives.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for creating action plans (including template-based and bulk creation tools), the absence of any usage context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection criteria.

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