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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. The API endpoint format suggests REST conventions, but explicit behavioral guidance is missing.

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 action. However, it's arguably too concise - it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name. The API path inclusion is somewhat redundant since the agent can infer REST conventions. The description could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Actual Production Quantity' represents in the domain context, doesn't provide examples of when to use it, and offers no information about the response format or potential errors. The description leaves too many gaps for effective tool invocation despite the comprehensive parameter 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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like the mutual exclusivity between wbs_code_id and cost_code_id/sub_job_id that the schema hints at) or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 states 'Create Actual Production Quantity' which clearly indicates a creation action, but it's vague about what an 'Actual Production Quantity' actually is. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_actual_production_quantities' or 'create_a_new_budgeted_production_quantity'. The description includes the API endpoint path which provides some context about the resource hierarchy, but the purpose remains somewhat abstract.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to production quantities (like 'bulk_create_actual_production_quantities' and 'create_a_new_budgeted_production_quantity'), but the description offers no comparison or context about when this single creation tool is appropriate versus bulk operations or budgeted quantities. The API path suggests this is for project management, but that's insufficient for tool selection.

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