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. It mentions 'POST' implying a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a signature ID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified for a creation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear, but the content is minimal, bordering on under-specified rather than concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a creation tool with 4 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'signature' means in this context, the expected outcome, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a complex domain (Project Management/Action Plans), this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters (e.g., explaining the relationship between 'attachment' and 'attachment_string', or typical use cases). It meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding beyond 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 action ('Create Action Plan Item Assignee Signature') and provides the API endpoint, which clarifies it's a POST operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'signature' entails (e.g., digital approval, document upload) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_approver_signature' or 'create_action_plan_receiver_signature', leaving purpose somewhat vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing action plan item assignee) or exclusions, making it unclear when this tool is appropriate compared to other signature-related 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.