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 only states 'Create Action Plan Section' and includes an endpoint, but fails to describe that this is a write operation (POST), what permissions are required, what happens on success or error, or any side effects. This lack of information is inadequate for a mutation 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 concise with two parts: the tool name and an endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose and usage. The structure is simple but not front-loaded with helpful information.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the resource being created, the expected behavior, or the response format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 Section' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_sections', but does not clearly explain what an 'Action Plan Section' is or what creating one entails, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related tools (e.g., sibling tools like 'create_action_plan' or 'create_action_plan_item'), or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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