Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' (implying a mutation/write operation) but gives no behavioral details: no mention of permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate requests, or the response format. The API path hint suggests a POST to a specific endpoint, but that's structural rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence with the tool name and API path. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but minimalistic, earning a high score for conciseness despite lacking depth.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Template Approver' is, the effect of creation, error conditions, or return values. The API path adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and operational details needed for a creation tool.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified relationships between parameters (e.g., that party_id becomes the approver for the given template).

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 Template Approver' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It specifies the action (Create) and resource (Action Plan Template Approver) but lacks specificity about what an 'approver' entails or the operational context. The API path hint adds some technical detail but doesn't clarify the business purpose beyond the literal 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, related tools (like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_approvers' from the sibling list), or typical scenarios. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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