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 states 'Create' (implying a write operation) and includes a POST method, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a reference ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 (one sentence plus a path) and front-loaded with the tool name, but it wastes space on redundant information (repeating the name) and includes an HTTP method that adds little value for an AI agent. It could be more structured by explaining the action's intent rather than just restating the name and endpoint.

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 (4 required parameters including a nested object), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Reference' is, how it's used, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with structured inputs, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between 'type' and 'payload', or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Reference. [Project Management/Action Plans] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_references' is mostly tautological—it restates the tool name and adds a generic category and HTTP method. It doesn't specify what an 'Action Plan Reference' is or what it references, leaving the purpose vague. While it mentions the resource path, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_references'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing action plan item), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'bulk_create_action_plan_references'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.

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