Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that this is a write operation (implied by 'Create' and POST method), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the minimal endpoint information.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by bracketed category and endpoint information that doesn't add explanatory value. The structure is not front-loaded with useful information, and the endpoint detail is more technical than helpful for an AI agent.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Item Assignee' represents in the domain, what happens when created, or what the response contains. The endpoint information doesn't compensate for these gaps, leaving significant uncertainty about tool behavior.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, not even mentioning the required project_id and plan_item_id. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 Assignee' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making the purpose vague. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_item_assignees', these do not clarify what the tool actually does beyond the name.

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, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees' or 'update_action_plan_item_assignee') that might be relevant. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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