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 mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a draft or published item, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimally informative about the tool's behavior beyond the HTTP method.

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 technically concise (one sentence fragment), but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context that would justify its brevity.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Item' represents in the domain, what happens after creation, or any system constraints. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without contextual understanding of the operation's significance or outcomes.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 Plan Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and API endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_items', but these don't clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'create' action. No specific verb-resource combination or sibling differentiation is provided.

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 numerous sibling tools (over 800 listed), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or comparison to similar creation tools like 'create_action_plan', 'create_action_plan_section', or 'bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees'. The agent receives no usage direction.

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