Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a write operation (POST), potential side effects (e.g., creating a bid record), required permissions, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is silent on critical behavioral aspects.

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 under-specified, not concise. 'Create bid' is too brief and lacks necessary context, while the appended API path '[Preconstruction/Bid Management] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/bid_packages/{bid_package_id}/bids' is unstructured and confusing, failing to front-load useful information for an AI agent.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits essential details like the response format, error conditions, and behavioral context, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., how 'recipient_ids' interact with 'vendor_id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 bid' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity about what the tool does. It does not specify the resource being created (a bid within a bid package) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_bid_form' or 'create_bid_package', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., existing project and bid package), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package', making it misleadingly simple.

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