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 mentions 'Create Bid Package' implying a write operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with 31 parameters. More context on side effects or constraints is needed.

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 functional statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the API endpoint detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent focused on tool selection. It's efficient but includes technical redundancy.

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 (31 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or operational context. For a creation tool with many inputs, more guidance on typical usage or required fields is missing, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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 states the tool creates a bid package, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bid' or 'create_a_bid_form', and the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Preconstruction/Bid Management] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/bid_packages' adds technical detail but not functional clarity. It's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to bids and packages (e.g., 'create_bid', 'create_a_bid_form', 'update_bid_package'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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