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 for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), doesn't mention required permissions, potential side effects, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns a record ID). The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with the tool name, category hint, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too terse, omitting necessary context that would help the agent. The structure is clear but under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 (5 required parameters including a nested object 'payload'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'Action Plan Test Record' is, how it relates to other entities (like 'plan_item_id' and 'plan_test_record_request_id'), or what the 'payload' should contain. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for understanding, which is insufficient for a creation tool with multiple dependencies.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies 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 'Create Action Plan Test Record' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Action Plan Test Record') but lacks detail about what this record represents or its purpose within the project management system. While it includes a category hint '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and API endpoint, these don't clarify the functional intent beyond the obvious verb 'Create'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing action plans or test record requests), typical scenarios for creating test records, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_test_record_request' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_test_record_requests'. The 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.