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 mentions 'POST' and the endpoint, implying a write operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether the signature overwrites existing ones, error conditions, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes the endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but minimal.

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 of a signature creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and the result of the operation, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly 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 the four required parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'attachment' and 'attachment_string' or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage due to the schema.

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 Approver Signature' and provides the HTTP method and endpoint, which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_item_assignee_signature' or 'create_action_plan_receiver_signature', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the tool name and includes technical endpoint details, offering no context about prerequisites, timing, or distinctions from similar signature-creation tools in the sibling list.

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