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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), or response format. The API path suggests a POST request, but the description lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating functional description from technical details). Every sentence contributes, but it's minimalistic.

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 (a mutation tool for creating signatures with file uploads), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral implications (e.g., multipart/form-data handling). For a tool with four required parameters and no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.

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 four parameters (project_id, plan_receiver_id, attachment, attachment_string) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Action Plan Receiver Signature'), which is specific and understandable. It includes the API endpoint path, which reinforces the context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_approver_signature' or 'create_action_plan_item_assignee_signature', though the path hints at the scope.

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 mentions the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other signature creation tools). This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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