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 states 'Create' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate receivers, or the response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, leaving critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 repetition and the API endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with actionable information; the endpoint detail is useful but secondary. While not verbose, it lacks efficient structuring that prioritizes purpose or usage, making it minimally adequate but not optimized for clarity.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'Receiver' is, the outcome of the operation, error conditions, or system behavior. For a write operation in a project management context, this leaves significant gaps that hinder the agent's ability to 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'ID of the Party to be designated as the Plan Receiver'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately documents the three required parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Receiver' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds the API endpoint path and category '[Project Management/Action Plans]', but does not specify what 'Receiver' means (e.g., designating a party to receive plans) or the action's effect. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_receivers'.

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, context (e.g., after creating a template), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_receivers'). Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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