Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but fails to describe permissions needed, whether this is destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic creation implication.

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 brief (one sentence plus API path) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it wastes space repeating the tool name and includes irrelevant API implementation details (POST path) that don't help the agent understand when or how to use the tool effectively.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'verification methods' are, what the tool returns, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly despite having complete parameter documentation in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (company_id, active, name) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 Verification Methods' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to clarify what 'verification methods' are or what the tool actually does beyond the obvious creation action.

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. No context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or differentiation from sibling tools (like other 'create_' tools) is included, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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